GULZAR AHMAD MATKOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions arises out of communication bearing No. MENG/118/2004 dated 07 -03 -2005, which may be noticed: Government of Jammu and Kashmir Health and medical education department. Principal,Government Medical College, Jammu.No. MENG/118/2004 Dated 07 -03 -2005.Subject: Notification of candidates for undergoing differentParamedical training course in AMT school Jammu/Srinagar by Hon'ble Minister of state Health and Medical Education.References: Your No.1. AHJ/NOM/MOS/R/3515 dated 21 -09 -20042. AHJ/NOM/MOS/4364 dated 10 -11 -20043. AHJ/NOM/MOS/R/3883 dated 15 -10 -20044. AHJ/NOM/MOS/R/4156 dated 01 -10 -2004Sir, I am directed to refer to your above correspondence on the subject matter and say that Hon'ble minister Health and medical education has observed as: The entire list of nominations made for various disciplines of paramedical courses by any authority not competent to do so needs to be quashed/cancelled immediately. Principal AMT School Jammu/Srinagar be asked not to entertain any such nominations in future. A list of 30 candidates for AMT School Srinagar and 20 candidates for AMT school Jammu from amongst the candidates nominated by Hon'ble Minister of State for Health and medical education be obtained and Put up for my consideration/approval.You are requested to take further action accordingly. Yours faithfully,Additional Secretary to Government,Health and medical education department...

(2.) THE communication aforementioned depicts inclination of the Government to quash the nominations made for disciplines of paramedical courses excepting 30 candidates of AMT School Srinagar and 20 of AMT School Jammu nominated by the State Minister. As regards nominations made by the Principals of the AMT schools Srinagar and Jammu, the Government appears dead set to undo the same for the reason that the competence is wanting on the part of the Principals, but amazingly, it is hell bent to protect 50 nominations notwithstanding the fact that the State Minister equally lacks competence to make the nominations. True it is that the power of the state for classifying the persons is not beyond its competence but sine qua non is that classification should be legitimate and reasonable. In the case on hand, both State Minister and the Principals have made the nominations without competence, then why to save 50 nominations made by the State Minister to the exclusion of those nominated by the Principals without there being any intelligible differentia. It is a case of clear -cut invidious discrimination. Suffice it to say that lack of competence being the cause for undoing the nominations made by the Principals, same course of action has to be resorted to in the case of nominations made by the State Minister. One more difficulty for the Respondent -State in its attempt to persuade the court to save some of the admissions is the number of enrolment which goes to 638 apparently over and above the intake capacity of 225 candidates, yet 50 candidates are sought to be protected by the State without any criteria being brought to the notice of the Court which could justify their entry to the course. A million -dollar question for the State to be answered in favour of the admission by nominations in absence of any valid criteria. It also needs to be borne in mind that the attainment of the training in paramedical course successfully confers eligibility on a candidate for appointment against several posts in the Health and Medical Education Department. That being so, I rule that the guarantee of equal protection of law embraces training of paramedical courses within its ambit. Viewed thus, pick and choose selection to the course in question is not sustainable.