SANJAY KUMAR RATHORE Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in these Writ Petitions pertains to the challenge on the new policy adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh to widen the scope of in-service candidates so as to include doctors appointed on contract basis in the matter of admission to Post-Graduate courses, commencing from the year 2010. As per the policy prevailing up to 2010, the in-service candidates consisted only of doctors recruited regularly through the H.P. Public Service Commission. However, as per the new policy and the prospectus issued thereafter (Annexure P-1):

(2.) It has also been stipulated in the prospectus that 50% of the degree and diploma courses shall be filled up through All India Entrance Examination and the remaining 50% will go to State quota. The 50% State quota is distributed between in-service candidates and open merit in the ratio of 70:30. It has been stipulated at 3.2 Group-B (State quota seats) A.. The in-service GDO quota of the prospectus that "out of remaining 50% seats for State quota, 70% will be filled up by in-service, regularly appointed (HPHS) health cadre candidates, adhoc and contractual appointees including appointees of Rogi Kalyan Samities. The GDO category will consist of two groups i.e. one group consisting of regularly appointed health cadre GD Os and second group consisting of adhoc, contractual and Rogi Kalyan Samities appointees. The distribution of seats between regular GD Os and those appointed on adhoc and contractual basis including Rogi Kalyan Samities appointees will be made in the ratio proportionate to their total number, as on 30.10.2009. For the academic session 2010-12/13, the distribution of seat between above two groups will be in the ratio of 4:1". Thus, as per the new post-graduate admission policy, the doctors who have been appointed on contractual or adhoc basis are also given a chance to compete for admission to post-graduate courses against the in-service quota. The reason for the change in the policy has been explained in the reply filed on behalf of the State, which reads as follows:

(3.) According to the writ Petitioners, the new policy as explained above, amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since un-equals have been treated equally. Several contentions referring also to certain apparently ambiguous contradictory clauses in the prospectus are also referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.