SUCHETA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties in both the cases.

(2.) PETITIONER , Dr. Sucheta Kumari has passed MBBS examination from Nepal Medical College, Kathmandu and after completing internship at Ram Mahohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, has been registered in the Indian Medical Register by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the MCI), vide Certificate No. 27517 dated 13.1.2006. Petitioner, Dr. Gyanendra Singh has passed MBBS examination from Anna Malai University and after completing internship, has been registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Chennai as medical practitioner, bearing Registration No. 65718 dated 28.2.2000. They are residents of Bihar and have questioned Clause 5.1(i) of the Prospectus issued for holding the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test for the Academic Session 2007 -08, which inter alia provides that only those who have passed MBBS examination from any medical college of Bihar State included in the schedule of MCI, shall be permitted to appear in the said examination as according to the petitioners such eligibility clause restricting the candidature of those who have passed MBBS examination from any other medical college though recognized by the MCI but situate outside Bihar, tantamounts to providing for 100% institutional reservation in favour of the students of the different medical colleges of the State, which is contrary to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India as has been interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court from time to time whereunder institutional preference should not exceed 50% of the total number of seats. In this connection, they have relied on the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1420, paragraphs 20, 21, in the case of Dr. Parag Gupta vs. University of Delhi & Others, reported in (2000)5 Supreme Court Cases 684, paragraphs 11 and 12, in the case of Saurabh Chaudri & Others vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2003)11 Supreme Court Cases 146, paragraphs 51, 55 and 57 in the case of Magan Mehrotra & Others vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2003)11 Supreme Court Cases 186, paragraph 8.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Intervenor Respondents also adopted the argument of the learned Advocate General.