PRAMOD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Dr. Pramod Sharma has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the criteria for selection of candidates for M.Ch. course contained in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 to be unconstitutional and further to direct to make selection for M.Ch. Courses on the basis of criteria contained in Schedule A.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his MBBS course from the University of Rajasthan in December 1982 and secured 52.2% marks. Thereafter the petitioner undertook one years's compulsory rotating internship. Later on, the petitioner was appointed in the Three Years' Residency in General Surgery in the year 1984. He completed Three Years Residency successfully and did his post graduation in General Surgery. He passed M.S. Examination, the result of which was declared by the University on 23 -7 -87. The petitioner worked in the Department of Urology during his Post Graduation. The petitioner, thus, contends that he has become eligible for selection for M.Ch. Course. The case of the petitioner further is that respondent No. 2, Principal, Medical College, Jaipur issued a notice on April 21 -22, 1987 whereby applications were invited for selection of candidates for various M.Ch. Courses of two years' duration. After about a month, respondent No. 2 issued notice, dated 18th May, 1987, whereby the notice dated April 21 -22, 1987, was withdrawn. Later on, a third notice dated July 25, 1987 was issued by respondent No. 2, whereby applications were invited afresh for selection of candidates seeking admission to M. Ch. Course. It is stated by the petitioner that the Govt. of Raj. had framed rules relating to selection of the candidates to D.M./M.Ch. Courses in the Medical Colleges in Raj. These courses were started in Raj. in 1982. Thus, the rules remained in force till the issuance of notice dated 22nd April, 1987. It is further stated that the Govt. is said to have issued some different rules, for prescribing criteria for judging the merit of the candidates. The petitioner has averred that the criteria for judging the merits of the candidates has been indicated in the notice dated 25th July, 1987, itself. As the petitioner and other candidates found the wholesome and arbitrary change in the criteria for adjudicating the merits of eligible candidates, they submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 on 7th July, 1987; but no reply was received. The petitioner has submitted that the change in the criteria will have serious consequences. By the new criteria, it is stated by the petitioner, the performance of the candidates at the final MBBS Examination has been given weightage and other aspects of adjudicating the merit have been ignored, or relegated to a very low position. The written test which should be the basis for selection for super speciality, has now been reduced to such an extent that it has lost its significance in the process of selection. It is, thus, submitted by the petitioner that the new criteria laid down by respondent No. 1 is per se arbitrary and discriminatory as it has given highly disproportionate weightage to the performance of the candidates at the final MBBS Examination and the performance of the candidates at the written test is rendered meaningless. The petitioner has further contended that a perusal of the qualifications prescribed by other medical institutions in the country would go to show that the performance at the written examination is given weightage as compared to the marks obtained at the final MBBS Examination. Thus, the respondents are now prescribing a totally different yard stick for selection of candidates. In short the contention of the petitioner is that the criteria is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN reply, the State has filed the return. In the written statement all the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It is contended that the criteria introduced on 24th June, 1987 suffers from no infirmity and the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. It is further stated that the guidelines have not excluded the performance in the written test, experience, research work and post graduate studies.