HANS RAJ Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is serving as a Dental Surgeon. The Governor of Haryana issued Notification dated 12.11.2007 declaring respondent No. 1 - Maharshi Dayanand University as the competent authority to conduct the entrance examination and declaration of results for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses in Government Medical and Dental Colleges, in the State of Haryana for the session of 2008. Respondent No. 2 was declared as the competent authority to conduct the counseling and finalisation of the admission in the aforesaid, course. Respondent No. l issued prospectus (Annexure P-1) containing terms and conditions for the entrance examination with the following schedule : JUDGEMENT_196_LAWS(P&H)8_2008.JP2.html

(2.) Besides laying down the qualifications and other eligibility criterion for examination/admission to the aforesaid courses, certain specific conditions were laid down for the candidates already in the service of any Government, Semi Govt., autonmous or any other organization. HCMS doctors sponsored by the State Government were eligible to appear in the Entrance through proper channel and they were required to submit their applications for getting NOCs to the department of the State well in time as provided in Annexure-D of the prospectus. For reserved category candidates, it was provided that they are eligible for NOC if he/she has completed five years service including the probation period out of which three years service should be in rural area and for open seats, the condition was three years service including two years service in the rural area. The petitioner claims to be belonging to reserved category, but at the time of last date for making applications, he was having less than five years service, but more than three years service including two years in rural area to his credit. He submitted his application form through proper channel under the open category as he was having less than five years of service as required for applying against the reserved vacancies. No Objection Certificate was issued by the Department. The petitioner appeared for MDS written entrance examination under roll No. 200167 on 24.2.2008 under the open category. The result of the entrance examination was declared on 25.2.2008. The petitioner secured 67.50/90 marks in the written examination and he secured rank No. 51 in the open category. In the reserved category, the petitioner claims to have ranked No. 2 as only one candidate, namely, Dr. K.K. Malhotra had secured 69.50/90 marks i.e. more than the petitioner. Only 11 candidates out of total 380 candidates appeared from the HCMS category against open seats or against reserved seats. Since the petitioner had applied for under the open category, he did not find place in the select list on the basis of the marks secured in the examination.

(3.) While the process of selection was on, respondents issued fresh policy dated 10.3.2008 (Annexure P-4) allegedly revising the earlier selection policy notified vide Prospectus (Annexure P-1). Under the new policy, it was, inter- alia, provided that the HCMS/HMES doctors serving in Health Department may seek admission in PG Courses and entire of higher studies, will be treated as on duty and they will be paid full pay and allowances. Even the basic eligibility of five years minimum service reduced to three years service for reserved category HCMS/HEM doctors. The petitioner claims to have made an application to respondent No. 3 through proper channel vide Annexures P-5 and P-6 requesting for his consideration against HCMS reserved seats and applied for "No Objection Certificate" in that category. However, No Objection Certificate has not been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents of not granting NOC in CWP No. 5406 of 2008 and also claimed benefit under the revised policy letter dated 10.3.2008 (Annexure P-4). However, this writ petition was adjourned. The respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner vide the impugned letter dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-8) and letter dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P8/A). In Annexure P-9, it has been stated that the petitioner applied for admission against the open seats vide his application dated 21.1.2008 for which "No Objection Certificate" was issued to him. It is further stated that the examination was conducted on 24.2.2008 and result already stands declared before the representation dated 19.3.2008 for fresh No Objection Certificate was received by the respondents. The stand of the respondents is that the existing policy came into operation on 10.3.2008 and request of the petitioner for NOC against reserved seats cannot be allowed as this would be unfair and unjust to all other candidates who are similarly situated and also to those who applied under the old policy against the reserved seats. In Annexure P-8/A, it is also indicated that revised policy dated 10.3.2008 cannot be implemented for the current admission and will be applicable from the next year. Both these letters are under challenge in the present writ petition.