NARESH KUMAR VARMANI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment as almost common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them. The facts of each petition are, however, being narrated separately. C. W. P. No. 309 of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner in this case passed his M. B. B. S. examination in the year 1980 from the Himachal Pradesh University and did his house job in the Discipline of Orthopaedics from 1981 to 1982 in the Snowdon Hospital, Shimla. Post-graduate Degree and Diploma Courses are held in Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla. For these courses there are several Disciplines, as mentioned in the Prospectus of the Medical College. One of the pre-requisites for admission is that the person should hold an M.B.B S. Degree from Himachal Pradesh University. The admission is on the basis of an open competitive examination to be conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University for different subjects. According to the prospectus and the averments in the petition there is one seat in the Speciality of Orthopaedics Degree Course. Two third seats are reserved for persons who are regularly appointed as G.D.O. I and G.D.O. II in Himachal Pradesh Health Services and the remaining 1/3rd seats are available to the graduates of Himachal Pradesh Medical College, who are not regularly appointed. A roster system is, however, to be followed.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that first seat for the year 1981-82 was to be filled from amongst the G.D.Os. and the second seat for 1983-84 is to be filled by a direct candidate and that the petitioner is entitled to apply for the aforesaid second seat. It is alleged that in the advertisement issued in the Daily Tribune (copy Annex. PB) it is mentioned that the seat is to be filled by a G.D.O. The petitioner alleges that this second seat cannot Be given to a G.D.O. and the decision of the authorities to give this seat to a G.D.O. is illegal, ultra vires and void and is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. With these allegations the petitioner prays that the advertisement (Annex. PB) be quashed and fresh applications from direct candidates he invited in accordance with the provisions of the Prospectus i.e. the present available seat be given to a direct candidate.