AQUEEL SARWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of the following relief prayed in this writ application:--

(2.) Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would like to distinguish the aforementioned judgment by taking a plea that in Prospectus issued in the State of Bihar being different than the State of Orissa, the facts of the case are different and consequentially the ratio laid down therein by the Apex Court cannot be made applicable. In the considered opinion of this Court such submission of Mr. Singh has to be only noted for its being rejected. It was initially Medical Council of India which had incorporated such provision for weightage and State of Orissa had incorporated it in its prospectus. The Apex Court in the case of Satyabrata Sahoo had examined the whole aspect including this situation in a very compact manner. Paragraphs No. 25 to 28 of this judgment of Apex Court in fact, takes note of both types of cases clarifying that there were States who had included such provision for giving reservation to any in-service candidates by way of weightage which reads as follows:--

(3.) From the aforesaid extract of the judgment of the Apex Court it is absolutely clear that M.C.I. Regulations which had made such provision for giving weightage for experience to the doctors in the employment for rural/remote/difficult area would encroach upon the right of the candidates of open category and was itself unsustainable. In that view of the matter, this court would not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.