PAPARI BHARALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in three writ petitions, namely Civil Rule Nos. 1136, 1148 and 1152 of 1992 have challenged the admission of 40 numbers of candidates to MBBS course, 20 in Gauhati Medical College (CMC) and 20 in Assam Medical College (AMC) for the session 1991-92.

(2.) Under the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1989 ('Rules' for short), Admission Test is to be conducted by the Selection Board constituted by the Government of Assam under Rule 4. The notification dated 9.6.91 was issued inviting application for admission to MBBS course for the session 1991-92. After holding Admission Test, the Selection Board sometime in the last part of Sept. 1991 published in various newspapers a provisional selection list in order of merit for final selection after interview. The Selection Board also published names of the candidates on waiting list in order of merit. The petitioner Papari Bharali in Civil Rule No. 1136 of 1992, and the petitioners Arup Kumar Sarma and Nipon Kumar Sarma in Civil Rule No. 1148 of 1992, were candidates on the waiting list their serial Nos. being 2, 5 and 15 respectively. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1152 of 1992 is the Guwahati Medical College Students Union.

(3.) Sometime in March, 1992 the Medical Council of India after necessary inquiry and inspection of three Medical Colleges in Assam granted or sanctioned 40 additional seats in the midst of session 1991-92. Thereafter, the Government of Assam amended the Rules. The result of the amendment of the Rules was that those additional 40 seats shall be reserved seats called Chief Minister's Discretionary Quota, for short 'CM's quota' and that those candidates nominated by the Chief Minister shall be exempted from appearing at the Admission Test. Thereafter sometime in June 1992, 40 candidates had been selected and few of them had been admitted to Colleges. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) of the Rules. The petitioners have contended that the criteria adopted in granting admission is discriminatory, unreasonable, and void, and that the 40 seats should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list.