DEEPAK GOYAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE special appeals through filed against separate judgments in (i) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1676/2004 Dr. Mukesh Garg and Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 16. 06. 2004 and (ii) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 881/2004 Dr. Deepak Goyal vs. University of Rajasthan decided on 25. 02. 2004 raise a common question, inasmuch as, a challenge has been made to the provisions contained in the Instructions issued for the Pre-P. G. Medical Examination, 2004 in so far as in the category of "in-service Doctors" who have rendered 2/3 years rural service the State Government has permitted by way of said Instructions in the eligibility clause in Annexure-1 in the writ petition of Dr. Deepak Goyal. The candidates who have worked in the rural areas continuously for three years in the service of State in the category of ad hoc/temporary appointees or on consolidated pay to be eligible as "in-service" category along with such candidates who are duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the R. P. S. C. ") and holding the appointments under Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1963") in pursuance of their selection by the R. P. S. C.

(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the appellants is that they are in- service candidates who have been duly selected by the R. P. S. C. and are members of Rajasthan Medical and Health Service under the Rules of 1963, whereas, the candidates who are working on ad hoc/temporary basis or on consolidated pay are not such candidates who are duly selected by the R. P. S. C. and are not members of Rajasthan Medical and Health Service under the Rules of 1963. Irrespective of the fact that such candidates have rendered three years of service in rural area and they are ad hoc/temporary appointees or appointees on contract basis or on consolidated pay they could not be made eligible for the seats reserved under the clause (b) for "in-service candidates of the Rajasthan State Medical Services. "

(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners drew our attention to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Harish Verma and Others vs. Ajay Srivastava and Another (2), decided on 16. 09. 2003 where while allowing the appeal their Lordships while setting aside the admissions given to ineligible candidates took into consideration that some delay in commencement of post-graduation studies would result into the overlapping of batches and directed that State Government should take necessary steps in consultation with the Medical Council of INdia to overcome the aforesaid difficulty.