PRAMOD JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POST Graduate course in Dental Surgery was first time started in the State of Rajasthan from the year 2006-2007. Initially some guidelines in regard to admission to the MDS Course were issued by the State Government, however, the guidelines so issued vide notification dated 29. 5. 2006 came to be challenged before this Court. As per the guidelines the admission to the MDS Course was to be made only on the basis of interview and a prayer was made that as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Verma and others vs. Vijay Srivastava, reported in 2003 (8) SCC Page 69, there ought to have been an entrance examination for admission to the MDS Course. Though the MDS Course had been started for the Sessions 2006- 2007, however, necessary amendments were not made in the Ordinance of the University in regard to the above POST-Graduate Course in Dental Surgery. As such, the criteria for admission also could not be laid down by the University in the Ordinance.

(2.) TAKING note of the above facts, this court, while allowing the writ petition filed by Dr. Mukesh Pal Singh and others, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4371/2006, vide its judgment dated 7. 6. 2006 reported in 2006 (3) WLC page 726 set aside the notification dated 29. 5. 2006 and directed the University of Rajasthan to conduct entrance test for PG Course in Dentistry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Ordinance 278-E and the University was further directed to undertake entire formalities within the time frame as fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the entrance test and the counseling.

(3.) AS has already been referred above, the PG Examination in Dentistry had been started only from the year 2006-2007. Though the degree is to be awarded by the University of Rajasthan, however, the corresponding amendment has not been made in the University Ordinance in regard to PG Course in Dentistry. Under such circumstances, this Court in the case of Dr. Mukesh Pal Singh (supra) had directed the University to hold the examination as per provisions of Ordinance 278-E. The criteria for admission has further to be fixed as per regulations made by Medical Council of India for admission to the courses as per Ordinance 278-E. The Supreme Court in the case of Harish Verma and others (supra) has categorically held that the guidelines issued by the MCI for prescribing cut-off marks in binding on the University as also the State Government. A reference has been made to the regulations of Dental Council of India which only provides for admission to PG Course in Dentistry by way of selection by the Selection Committee including Senior Teachers, however, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Verma and others (supra) wherein the Supreme court has held that in such Post-Graduate Courses, the admission can only be made through entrance examination. That apart, the criteria for selection at the time of admission at the best should be left to the experts. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that there should be no compromise so far as the admission to the PG Courses in medical sciences are concerned. Under the circumstances, the criteria fixed by the University in the present matter cannot be held to be unreasonable for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Course also. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the general category and failed to secure 50% marks as notified in the Instruction Booklet issued for the present examination was not entitled for admission to the MDS Course. That part, the petitioner fully knowing the conditions duly notified in the notifications dated 9. 6. 2006 as also Instructions Booklet for the Pre PG Dental Examination 2006 having appeared in the examination, now cannot be allowed to challenge the conditions mentioned therein after failing to secure the minimum requisite marks.