SUDHIR BALDWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of all the above listed writ petitions as the point involved in all of them is identical. For the purpose of disposing of the writ petitions, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6325/94. Dr. Sudhir Baldwa V State of Rajasthan and Another will be taken.

(2.) THE petitioner Dr. Sudhir Baldwa passed his MBBS from the SMS Medical College, Jaipur in the year 1992 -93 and appeared in All Rajasthan Pre -P.G. Entrance Examination, 1994 and was declared successful and was placed in the merit position at No. 113 -1 in the over -all merit prepared in the Pre -P.G. He was initially allotted P.G. (Medicine) at RNT Medical College, Udaipur vide order dated 1.6.1994 and in the first re -shuffling he was given preference for Ajmer in the same speciality vide order 13.7.94. It is stated that one Dr. Om Prakash Garg was also allotted M.D. Medicine at Jaipur and an application for mutual transfer was submitted by Dr. Garg from Jaipur to Ajmer and by Dr. Baldwa from Ajmer to Jaipur. When the joint request was not accepted, Dr. Garg had no option but to resign and the said resignation was accepted on 30.9.94. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the past on the basis of the application for mutual transfer the candidates were transferred and for the purpose the name of Dr. Alok Madan and Dr. Sunil Gupta have been given in which the transfer from Jaipur to Bikaner and Bikaner to Jaipur was made. In case of the petitioner it is submitted that similar treatment has not been given and the action of the respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A representation is alleged to have been sent to the Principal Secretary, Government, Medical and Health Department, on 12.11.1994 in this regard. It is also stated that the seat which is available on account of resignation of Dr. Garg was not initially taken into consideration on 15.11.1994. It is also submitted that the counselling of the vacant seat is only in respect of the candidates who have not been given admission earlier and as such giving the admission to such a candidate who is lower in merit is not. in accordance with Ordinance 278 -E and the judgment of the Apex Court, because such a candidate having lower merit could be able to get a better speciality and better place. Counselling should have been only on the basis of merit -cum -preference. It is submitted that the course for P.G. is 3 years and in the first year the training remains the same in all the Medical Colleges and as such it does not affect any candidate if transfer is made in accordance with the principle of merit -cum -preference.

(3.) MR . Ashopa, appearing on behalf of Dr. Sumet Shah submits that Dr. Shah appeared in Pre -P.G. in 1994 and was placed in merit at No. 219. in the interviews in the last week of May, 1994 he had not availed the same and the first -reshuffling took place in July, 1994, he has also not availed the same and so was the position in the second -re -shuffling which was on September 26 to 29, 1994 and it was in the counselling for which the notification was issued on 15.11.1994. The petitioner was given admission in view of the guidelines issued by the Government on the basis of the judgment given in the case of Dr. Mahendm Kumar Bhadu (Supra).