Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.S. Gupta And 5 Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And 7 Ors. on 25 April, 2006
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. The petitioners are all doctors working under the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and are "in-service" candidates for admission into the Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in the colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have challenged the provision in Rules 8(5)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2006 (in short "the Rules") that only those in-service candidates, who have completed 5 years of service on 1st of January of the year of examination will be eligible for 20% of seats in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses reserved for the in-service candidates.
2. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the Rules, the academic year 2006 would commence from 2nd of May, 2006 and the petitioners will complete 5 years service before 2nd of May, 2006 and, therefore, they should not be barred from taking admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. He vehemently submitted that as a consequence of the impugned provision in Rule 8(5)(a) of the said Rules, an in-service candidate who will complete 5 years of service between 2nd of January, 2006 and 30th of April, 2006, will not be eligible for taking the entrance examination for admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses commencing from 2nd of May, 2006 and will have to wait for one more year to take the entrance examination for admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. He further submitted that a general candidate, who is not an in-service candidate, on the other hand, would not be eligible under the aforesaid Rules for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course unless he completes compulsory internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. recognized institutions and unless he is permanently registered with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I., but Sub.-rule 15(1)(B) provides the cut off date for such general candidates to complete general internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. Institution and for registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. as 3.0.4.2006. He submitted that the impugned Rules are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it provides for one cut off date for completion of 5 years service for in-service candidate as 1st of January, 2006 and another cut off date for general candidates for completion of internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. recognized Institution and for obtaining a permanent registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. as 30.4.2006.
3. Mr. Tiwari cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.J. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ramjee Prasad and Ors. in which it has been held that if the authorities fix a cut off date which is capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark, the Court can quash the decision of the authority with regard to the cut off date. He pointed out that in Dr. Rupal Bandi v. State of M.P. and Anr. a Division Bench of this Court examined the rules for entrance examination for admission to the post-graduate courses in Medical colleges of Madhya Pradesh for the year 1992 which provided that candidates completing internship upto 31.12.1992 only would be eligible and candidates completing internship beyond 31.12.1992 would not be eligible and held that the cut off date of 31.12.1992 for deciding eligibility regarding completion of internship had definitely proper nexus with respect to selection of candidates for 3 years Pre-post Graduate courses in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for the year 1992 and the cut off date for deciding eligibility on the basis of completion of internship before 31.12.1992 was held to be not arbitrary or valid. He submitted that in the present case since the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, are to commence on 2nd of May, 2006, the cut off date for deciding the eligibility of the candidates for admission to such courses should be 30th of April, 2006 and not 1st of January, 2006. Mr. Tiwari also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officer Association v. State of M.P. and Anr. wherein it has been held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and that the said intelligible differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He argued that in-service candidates and general candidates may fall into two different classes and such classification may be based on intelligible differentia, but such intelligible differentia has no rational nexus with the provision in the Rules relating to cut off date on which the eligibility of the two different classes of the candidates is to be determined. He submitted that the provision in the impugned Rules providing for two different cut off dates for in-service candidates for completing 5 years service and for general candidates, for completing internship and for registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.CI./D.C.I. is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents relying on the return filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that for completing the selection process before the commencement of the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses on 2nd May, 2006, the cut off date of 5 years service has been fixed as 1st January, 2006. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. in which the classification between in-service candidates and open category candidates for the purpose of admission in Post Graduate courses of the Medical Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh was upheld by the Supreme Court. Mr. Yadav submitted that it is thus clear that in-service candidates and open category candidates fall into different classes and in-service candidates cannot compare themselves with open category candidates even with regard to the cut off date for eligibility.
5. Mr. Yadav also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Welfare Assocn. A.R.P. Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors. that a legislation intended to apply for benefit of a well defined class is not open to challenge with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the same does not extend a similar benefit or protection to other persons. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Ombalika Das and Anr. v.Hullsa Shaw for the proposition that classification for the purpose of legislation cannot be done with mathematical precision and the legislature enjoys considerable latitude while exercising its wisdom taking into consideration myriad circumstances, enriched by its experience and strengthened by people's will. He also placed reliance on the observations of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Association and Ors. that the complaint based on Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach or by having regard to individual cases and it is not prudent or pragmatic to insist on a mathematically accurate classification covering diverse situations and all possible contingencies.
6. Mr. Yadav also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. in which the Supreme Court has reiterated the law laid down in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works and Sushma Sharma (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan 1985 Supp S.C.C 45 that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances and that the decision of the legislature or its delegate on such choice of date must be accepted unless it can be said that it is wide off the reasonable mark. He submitted that the Rule making authority has fixed the cut off date for completion of 5 years service for in-service candidates to be eligible for taking the entrance examination and for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses as 1st of January of year of examination and this choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary or even capricious or whimsical and cannot be held to be very wide off the reasonable mark considering the fact that admissions to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses are to be completed and the commencement of the said course is to take place on 2nd of May, 2006.
7. The law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works and reiterated in D.J. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Anr., State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ramjee Prasad and Ors. and University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. (Supra) that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances and that the decision of the legislature or its delegate on such choice of date must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark, But the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases apply to those cases where there is one cut off date chosen by the legislature or its delegate and it has been held that unless such cut off date chosen by the legislature or its delegate is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances or is very wide off the general mark the choice of such cut off date by the legislature or its delegate must be accepted by the Court. In the present case, if the rule making authority had fixed one cut off date within which the in-service candidates and the general candidates were to fulfill the eligibility conditions, then the Court could not interfere with such choice of cut off date made by the rule making authority. But the rule making authority has provided two cut off dates within which the candidates have to fulfill the eligibility conditions. For in-service candidates, Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules provides that they should have completed 5 years of service on 1st of January of the year of examination to be eligible for taking the examination for 20% of seats in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses reserved for in-service candidates and for general candidates. Rule 15(l)(b) provides that a candidate must have completed compulsory internship from M.C.I./D.C.I. recognized institution and also registered himself with the M.C.I./D.C.I. or Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council on or before 31.3.2006. These provisions in the Rules, providing for two cut off dates for in-service candidates and general candidates, have been challenged in the writ petitions as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. Paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6, of the writ petitions, which are similarly worded in both the writ petitions, contain the said challenge to the impugned Rules as discriminatory and arbitrary and are quoted herein below:
6.5 For general candidates, i.e. fresh M.B.B.S., the Government has prescribed 31st of March for completion of Internship and 30th April for obtaining the permanent registration from the State Medical Council. It cannot prescribe a different criterion for the In Service candidates. The above said Provision for fresh M.B.B.S. candidates is with a view to save their year and give them the advantage of continuing with the Post Graduate Studies soon after their Internship and Registration. Similar is the idea to promote the cause of In Service candidates in respect of obtaining higher qualification and higher Degree and serve in Government Hospital- thereby render better quality services as Medical men to people in general that come into the Government Hospitals.
6.6 The Provision, which is under challenge, is compelling the petitioners to lose their one-year. This would be very hard on their career in Government Service. In the abovesaid view of the matter, the Provision of 1st, January of the year of Examination being the date for completion of 5 years' service in the case of regular In-Service candidates, is highly arbitrary and unconscionable. It is in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since that part is severable from the rest of the Rule, it can safely be struck down and the Rule may be made applicable. Hence this Petition.
9. The reply to this challenge of discriminatory and arbitrary cut off dates for in-service candidates and the general candidates as given in Para 5 of the return of the said respondents is quoted herein below:
5. The answering respondents respectfully submit that the State Government while adhering to the aforesaid guidelines from the rules for academic year 2004-2005 vide notification dated 7.11.03; whereby the cut off date of "1st January of year of examination" was inserted. This cut off date has the nexus with the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and the commencement of the Course. The answering respondent respectfully submit that for the academic year, 2005-2006 also the aforesaid eligibility criteria was repeated and presently also for the academic year, 2006-2007, the criteria i.e. "1st January of year of examination" has been retained. The answering respondents respectfully submit that there is no arbitrariness in fixing the date as 1st January. The petitioner while comparing herself with general candidates in respect of the eligibility criteria. The answering respondents respectfully submit that there cannot any comparison between the in service candidates and general candidates, they are two separate class. The cut off date for completion of internship and a registration there of with the Medical Council prior to commencement of a course, because the internship is permissible only when a student has passed a graduation examination and for purpose of registration as a Doctor with the Medical Council, It is necessary to have completed the internship. It is submitted that there is no extended out off date of passing a graduation examination which is the eligibility for affording for Post Graduate entrance Exam, whereas, in the case of in-Service candidates, he must have completed 5 year of regular service on 1st of January of year of examination. This criteria, it is submitted, has a nexus with the time schedule framed for selection and commencement of Course.
10. It will be clear from the reply in the return of the respondents quoted above that the cut off date of 1st January of the year of examination, within which in-service candidates are to complete 5 years of service, has been fixed taking into consideration the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses are to be commenced. If that be so, then the cut off date for general candidates to complete the internship after M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and to complete the formality of registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/ Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. should also have been 1st of January of the year of examination and not 30th of April, 2006. The reasons given in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents quoted above are that in-service candidates and general candidates fall into two different classes and therefore, in-service candidates and general candidates cannot be compared with each other and that for the general candidates passing of M.B.B.S. or B.D.S. in the eligibility condition, and completion of internship after M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and registration with M.C.I. or B.D.I. or Madhya Pradesh Medical Council or Dental Course is not an eligible condition. It is true that in-service candidates and general candidates fall into two different classes and there is a clear intelligible differentia for the classification of in-service candidates and general candidates into two different classes. In-service candidates are those candidates who have put in five years service in different establishments of the State Government as mentioned in the Rules and the general candidates are those candidates who are not in any such service. But the classification under Article 14 of the Constitution must not only be based on intelligible criteria but such intelligible criteria must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision. The impugned provision In the Rules is the cut off date of 1st of January of the year of examination within which an in-service candidate is tip complete 5 years of service to be eligible for entrance examination for admission to the 20% seats in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses reserved for in-service candidates. The object of this provision was to stick to the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and courses are to be commenced as stated in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents quoted above. But the object for fixing the cut off dates within which the general candidates ought to complete the internship with the institutions recognized by the M.C.I./B.D.I. and to complete the formality of registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. institutions is also to ensure completion of the selection process within the time schedule and before the commencement of the courses but the cut off date for completion of such internship and registration for general candidates, as envisaged in the Rules is 30.4.2006 and not 1st of January 2006. If general candidates who complete the internship by 30.4.2006 and register themselves with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. institution before 30.4.2006 are eligible for the entrance examination for admission to the Post Graduate courses, we fail to see why in-service candidates who complete 5 years of service before 30.4.2006 will also not be eligible for the said entrance examination for the Post Graduate Courses. In other words, in service candidates and general candidates may fall into two different classes, but the intelligible differentia on which in-service candidates and general candidates have been classified has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision.
11. In State of M.P. and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. (Supra) cited by Mr. Yadav the question which fell for decision before the Supreme Court was whether it was permissible to hold and conduct separate entrance examinations for in-service and open category candidates, or should there be only one common entrance test and the Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in K. Duraisamy v. State of Tamilnadu and in AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS held that there was nothing wrong in the State Government setting apart a definite percentage of educational seats at Post Graduation level consisting of degree and diploma courses exclusively for the in-service candidates and for providing a separate and exclusive source of entry or channel for admission. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether separate cut off dates for fulfilling the eligible criteria should be fixed for in-service candidates and general candidates did not arise for decision before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. In Para 21 of the said Judgment as reported in the Supreme Court Cases, the Supreme Court held that to withstand the test of reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, the classification must satisfy the twin tests. Relevant, portion of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal D. Tirthani (Supra) is quoted herein below:
To withstand the test of reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is well settled that the classification must satisfy the twin tests: (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things placed in a group from those left out or placed not in the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved. It is permissible to use territories or the nature of the objects or occupations or the like as the basis for classification. So long as there is a nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved, the classification is valid.
Thus, although the classification between in-service candidates and general candidates is based on an intelligible differentia, the differentia has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision in the Rules relating to fixing of two different cut off dates for fulfilling the eligibility conditions by in-service candidates and general candidates. The impugned provision in Rule 8(5)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Course Examination Rules, 2006 is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. Though we have held that Rule 8(5)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2006 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary for us to strike down the said provision of Rules for the purpose of giving relief to the petitioners; in this case. Since the entrance examinations have already been held in accordance with the said Rules, 2006, striking down the impugned provision may disturb the time schedule for completion of the selection process and for commencement of the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. Ends of justice will be served in this case, if the petitioners in these two writ petitions who have already taken the examination pursuant to interim order passed by this Court, would be treated as eligible, if they complete 5 years of service as on 30.4.2006 and in case they are selected they will not be denied admission on the ground that they have not completed 5 years of service on 1st of January, 2006 as per Rule 8(5)(a) of the said Rules.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are allowed but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.