SANJAY PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four writ petitions and at the request of the respective parties all the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. The facts of the case of Dr. Sanjay Pareek & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1449/2004) are being taken as a leading case.

(2.) THE petitioners passed the MBBS courses from recognized colleges and also completed internship as it is part of MBBS course and were declared successful in the said course.

(3.) AGAINST the Full Court judgment dated 5. 2. 2003 the SLIP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 19. 8. 2003 passed the following interim order: " We have taken up the hearing in all these matters. However, it is found that in SLP (c) Nos. 965/2003 and 14367- 91/2003 formal notices have not yet been issued. There were several writ petitioners before the High Court who have been impleaded as respondents and in out opinion they must be served and afforded an opportunity of hearing before these matters are taken up for hearing. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service shall be effected on all the respondents through Director Health Service, State of Rajasthan as per the private respondents are all in service doctors and in addition notices shall also be published in Rajasthan Patrika (Hindi) and The Hindustan Times (English), Jaipur Edition. In addition we direct the Secretary (Medical & Health) department, State of Rajasthan to put in notice on the notice board of all the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan about the filing of these petitioners and their coming up for hearing and that the respondents may enter appearance if so advised. The publication in the newspapers and notice displayed on the notice boards of the Medical Colleges shall clearly state the names of all the private respondents. The State of Rajasthan, University of Rajasthan and Dr. Ajay Srivastava are represented in connected matters and they accept notices in these matters. Notices need not be served on them. The Convenor of Pre-PG Examination and Union of India have been served in the connected matters and have chosen not to appear. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are proforma parties and not interested in contesting these matters. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment submitting that the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Rajasthan though directed conflict with the earlier decisions of this Court as also with State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Gopal D. Tirthan and Ors. 2003 (6) IT 204 that being followed in the State of Rajasthan. It is directed that operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended for future. "