NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of CWP Nos. 6613, 7492, 7525, 8903, 6402 and 8519 of 1988 as in all the five cases identical questions of law and facts are involved. The arguments were advanced in Civil Writ Petition No. 6613 of 1988 by Shri Rajiv Atma Ram which were followed by the other learned counsel appearing in other cases. Mr. J.C. Verma, learned counsel, had advanced additional argument in CWP No. 6402 of 1988. The main judgment is handed down in CWP No. 6613 of 1988 filed by Dr. Nirmal Khmar.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he passed the MBBS Examination in the year 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner did his two house-jobs in the speciality of general medicine from July 1981 to June 1982. From 1982 to 1985 the petitioner did rural service. Thereafter the petitioner is practising at Sonepat (Haryana). Respondent 2, i.e. M. D. University, Rohtak advertised seats for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of M.D./M.S. at the Medical College, Rohtak -- respondent 3. The total number of seats was 95. Out of these 95 seats, twenty seats were reserved for candidates going from the Haryana Civil Medical Services. Out of the remaining 75 seats, 30 per cent (24 seats) were reserved to be filled up on the basis of All India Basis Competition and the remaining 51 seats were left to be filled up from the candidates in open merit. The petitioner claims that he was eligible for admission to M.D./M.S. Courses at the respondent college. He applied for admission to M.D./M.S. Courses for the sessions 1988-89 against open category of seats. He also appeared for the written test and on the basis of criteria laid down, was placed in the waiting list at serial 3. He is now at serial 1 of the waiting list as persons at serial 1 and 2 have already been admitted. The respondents 1 to 3, instead of granting admission to him, have granted admission to the M.D./M.S. Courses to respondent 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that out of 24 seats reserved for being filled on the basis of All India Competitive Examination, only 8 were actually utilised and as such the remaining 16 seats had become available to the candidates from the general category. The case of the petitioner further is that these 16 seats had to be filled up from the general category candidates and that the respondents have wrongly reserved 4 out of these 16 seats for H.C.M.S. doctors. He claims that the reservation of 4 seats for candidates belonging to the Haryana Civil Medical Service was illegal. He has claimed that the admission of respondent 4 belonging to the Haryana Civil Medical Service is illegal and he is, entitled to be admitted against the resultant seat. In support of his case the petitioner has, referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Pardeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 and Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, AIR 1985 SC 1059. It has been suggested that the college had reserved 30% seats out of the 75 seats for being filled up on the basis of the All India competition.