LAWS(RAJ)-2002-4-34

MRINAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 30, 2002
MRINAL JOSHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases the question of law requiring consideration by this court and the relief sought are same, arising out of similar set of facts and thus they were heard jointly and are being finally decided by this common order. The PG students in these cases, who are petitioners in some of the cases and respondents in others, were registered for M.D., M.S. course in the year 1996, except Dr. Varsha Dashora who was registered in the year 1997, after having cleared in MBBS examination with one year's internship. They were allotted their placements in merit list in different subject/ specialities for M.D., M.S.course. Some of them were permitted to change, by reshuffling, their subject/ specialities. The PG students having not completed three years of training in a subject/ speciality before commencement of the examination they were not permitted to appear in the examination. Feeling aggrieved by not getting permission to appear in the examination writ petitions were filed. Under the orders of the Court they appeared in the examination and were declared successful.

(2.) The case of PG students is that Ord. 278-E of the University of Rajasthan postulates only the period of training for M.D., M.S. course, which is three years, and the period of training is to be completed for grant of Degree, but before completion of three years training one can appear in the examination, as the Ord. 278-E does not prohibit post-graduate students to appear in the examination before completion of the training in M.D., M.S. course. It is further urged that the requirement of three years training is only for the purposes to determine the eligibility of the student before awarding the Degree in the subject/ speciality and, thus could not be construed as a condition precedent, for appearing in the examination. The aforesaid submissions found favour of the learned single judge when he held

(3.) In Maharshi Dayanand University v. Dr. Anto Joseph, (1998) 6 SCC 215, the Apex Court was required to consider the requirements of the Medical Council of India with regard to the period of training, which reads thus :-