JAYANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT bunch of petitions since involves common question, hence being decided by the present order. For examining the controversy the facts in CWP-9391/12 & 9325/12 have been taken note of. The writ petitioners appeared in Pre P.G. Medical Examination-2012 against seats reserved for "in-service category " for selection to PG medical course and as it reveals from the record that as many as 178 seats were reserved for "in-service category " (161 degree & 17 diploma) & 176 for non- service (160 degree & 16 diploma), to be filled through P.G. Medical Entrance Examination-2012 in terms of Ordinance 278-E of University Ordinance regarding the eligibility criteria of "in-service category ", being relevant for the present purpose, reads ad-infra. (II)for seats reserved for in-service candidates as referred at clause (II-b) the candidates should be duly selected by the R.P.S.C. under Rajasthan Medical & Health Services Rules, 1963 or should be working as adhoc/temporary/contractual basis and should be below the age of 45 years and should have completed at least three years of service in the rural areas of the State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of Rural Areas of desert/hilly/tribal parts of the state. Rural area is defined as a rural area where rural allowance is admissible to the doctors and should have actually served in the rural area. No application form for Pre PG entrance examination along with certificate of rural experience shall be accepted under the signatures of D.M. & H.S. No application of in-service candidates shall be accepted by the University, if sent directly ".

(2.) ALL such applicants/candidates who were selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission ( "RPSC ") under Rajasthan Medical Health Service Rules, 1963 ( "Rules,1963 ") or working on adhoc/temporary/contractual basis and are below the age of 45 and have completed either three years of service in rural areas of State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of rural areas of desert/hilly/tribal parts of the State could be considered to participate against the seats reserved for in-service category. The written examination was held on 11th & 14th February, 2012 and after intervention of this Court while disposing of CWP-2641/12 (Vijay Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs. State) vide order dt. 9.4.2012 directed the respondents to publish the revised merit list of all the candidates who appeared in Pre-PG Examination held on 11th & 14th Feb., 2012, introducing statistical equivalence percentile method (SEP).

(3.) MR . RP Singh further submits that doctors are not supposed to go on strike or protest as the case may be but that may be a decision of the doctors in general and government will certainly take action what the law permits but few individuals who have finally been selected and served the state government, their merit should not sacrifice and keeping that paramount pragmatic view into consideration the extraordinary leave has been sanctioned to the doctors and not to any individual but only few have been selected and find place in merit and able to succeed in getting admission on the basis of their merit in Pre P.G. Admission 2012 against the seats reserved for in-service and if petitioners were not found place in order of merit at least candidates who are higher in merit are not supposed to be deprived of their legitimate right accrued to them as regards seeking admission in the post graduate course against seats reserved for in-service category. Mr. RA Katta appearing for University supported the submission made by the Additional Advocate General. However, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate appearing for private respondents additionally submits that present petitioners have no locus standi to question the decision of the state government sanctioning/granting extraordinary leave without pay for the relevant period vide its order dt.06.06.2012 since such decision of the government is not a part of process of the selection held by the respondents regarding admissions to PG course against in-service category and petitioners cannot be said to be person aggrieved to question granting extraordinary leave to the doctors in general without pay and writ petitions deserves to be dismissed.