Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 MADHYA PRADESH 63
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 8337/2010
Dr.Pooja Mathur.................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others.............................. Respondents
For the petitioner : Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Counsel
with Shri Abhijit Dave, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 to 4 Advocate General
For the respondent : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate
No.5.
For the respondent : Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with
No.6 Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate
Writ Petition No.9619/2010
Dr.Ritu Agrawal............................................ Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others................................ Respondents
For the petitioner : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 to 3 Advocate General
Writ Petition No.6321/2010
Dr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................ Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and others............................... Respondents
For the petitioners : Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate
For the respondents: Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional
No.1 & 2 Advocate General
For the respondent : Smt.Indira Nair, Senior Counsel with
No.6 Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate
=========================================
2
Present: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri S.R.Alam
Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(29/10/2010) As per: S. R. Alam, Chief Justice In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner has questioned the validity of the provisions contained in Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2010 Rules') whereas in W.P. No.6321/2010 the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. However, in Writ Petition No.9619/2010 though the validity of the rules has not been specifically challenged but the point in issue of this petition is interlinked with the controversy involved in Writ Petition No.8337/2010 and, therefore, this Court vide order dated 17.8.2010 directed the petition to be listed along with Writ Petition No.8337/2010. This is how all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant admission in M.S. Gynaecology to the petitioner against the seat which is kept vacant vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed by Indore Bench of this Court. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to allow her to participate in the second round of counselling. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that petitioner has obtained M.B.B.S. degree with four gold medals. She as well as respondent No.5 appeared in Pre P.G. Test, 2010, conducted by the respondent No.2 in which the petitioner and respondent No.5 got equal marks i.e. 151 out of 200. It is relevant to mention here that in Part-B of the examination also the petitioner and respondent No.5 secured equal marks. Though the petitioner 3 as well as respondent No.5 secured equal marks, yet the respondent No.5 was placed at Sr. No.58 in the merit list, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.61 in the merit list on the sole ground that respondent No.5 is older in age. One Dr. Neha Sharma, who had also appeared in Pre P.G. test, filed a writ petition, namely, W.P.No.3565/2010. In the said writ petition Indore Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 06.4.2010 directed that one seat in M.S. Gynaecology shall be kept vacant till next date of hearing. The respondent No.5 who had participated in Pre. P.G. counselling could not get the seat in M.S. Gynaecology, therefore, she opted for a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for short 'DGO') in M.P. quota and obtained admission. She had also appeared in All India Entrance Examination. In All India quota seats also she could secure a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology. Thus, the respondent No.5 obtained seat in DGO in M.P. quota as well as in All India quota. The respondent No.5 after getting admission in diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics submitted her resignation from the seat in DGO of M.P. quota. However, by suppressing the aforesaid fact she filed a writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 6092/2010 in which a relief was claimed that she be permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.
3. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma and respondent No.5 came up for hearing before Indore Bench of this Court on 20.5.2010. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma was dismissed whereas the writ petition preferred by respondent No.5, Dr. Ritu Agrawal, was disposed of with a direction to permit her to appear in second round of counselling for a seat in M.S. Gynaecology. It is averred that respondent No.5 was not entitled to appear in second round of counselling. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner of W.P.No.8337/2010 has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules which provides that if two candidates secure equal marks even in Part B of the question paper, the candidate older in age will be placed 4 higher in inter se merit of such candidates. She also challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which provides that any candidate who has been allotted a seat in a college/institution will not be permitted to participate in the subsequent counselling.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No.9619/2010, Dr.Ritu Agrawal, has challenged the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by a Committee headed by Director, Medical Education, by which she has been held to be ineligible to participate in second round of counselling.
5. Petitioners in W.P.No.6321/2010 have challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which prohibits a candidate from appearing in the second round of counselling once he/she is allotted a seat in first round of counselling.
6. Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have filed a detailed return in W.P.No.8337/2010 which has been adopted in W.P.No.9619/2010 and W.P.No.6321/2010. In the return it is, inter alia, stated that the challenge putforth by the petitioner to the rules in question is misconceived. It has been averred that Rule 9.9 of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006, which was in para materia to Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules has been held to be intra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P., ILR [2007] M.P. 178. Thus, the challenge to the aforesaid rule is no longer res integra. It has further been averred that challenge to Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules is also misconceived as the same is not in violation of Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (in short 'Regulations') which has been framed by Medical Council of India. The higher age in case of other things being equal is a universally accepted criteria to give preference to selected candidate. It has further been averred that respondent No.5 was ineligible to participate in second round of counselling.
57. Respondent No.5 has filed return in W.P.No.8337/2010 in which, inter alia, it is stated that due to interim order passed by this Court in writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma by which one seat in M.S. Gynaecology was directed to be kept vacant, the respondent No.5 could not be selected. She under protest and reserving her right for the aforesaid seat opted for seat in DGO in M.P. quota. It has further been averred that contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 after having submitted her resignation and acceptance of the same, cannot claim a seat in M.S. Gynaecology, is misconceived. It has further been averred that petitioner as well as respondent No.5 had appeared in second round of counselling for a seat of M.S. Gynaecology, however, the candidature of respondent No.5 was rejected by a Committee vide order dated 22.6.2010 which is under challenge in W.P.No.9619/2010.
8. Respondent No.6, Medical Council of India, has filed counter affidavit in which, inter alia, it has been stated that Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act') have statutory force. It has been averred that the Regulations have been framed by Medical Council of India which prescribe minimum eligibility criteria for admission to P.G. courses as well as time schedule for making admissions to P.G. courses. It is not permissible for any University or Medical institute to depart from the norms with regard to eligibility criteria and time schedule fixed by the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 20 of the 1956 Act empowers the Medical Council of India to prescribe standards for Post Graduate Medical Education for the guidance of Universities. In exercise of powers under Section 33(l) of the 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India has 6 framed Regulations which are known as Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The aforesaid Regulations have statutory force as has been held by Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1999 SC 2894, State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others, (2003) 7 SCC 83 and Harish Verma and others vs. Ajay Srivastava and another, (2003) 8 SCC 69. Regulation 9 of Regulations provides that students for Post Graduate Medical Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of academic merit. It is argued that Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules is ultra vires Regulation 9 of Regulations inasmuch as the same prescribes a criteria of placement in merit list on the basis of age, in case candidates secure equal marks. It is contended that aforesaid rule is contrary to Regulation 9 framed by Medical Council of India. It is further submitted that Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules in so far as it prohibits a candidate from participating in second round of counselling merely because he has been allotted a seat in first round of counselling is arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned senior counsel in this connection has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal and others, AIR 2009 SC 323. It is further submitted that on 06.4.2010 Indore Bench of this Court by interim order directed that one seat of M.S.Gyneacology shall be kept vacant. Thereafter, on 07.4.2010 the first counselling was held whereas second counselling was held on 04.6.2010. Therefore, when the petitioner appeared in the first round of counselling, seat in M.S. Gyneacology was not available and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner participated in second round of counselling. It was further submitted that respondent No.5 having resigned from the seat of DGO from State quota was ineligible to participate in second round of counselling. It is further contended that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) MPHT 325, while dealing with Rule 9.9 7 of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006, did not test the validity of aforesaid Rules on the anvil of Regulation 9 of Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.
10. Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.6321/2010 while adopting the submissions made by learned senior counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.8337/2010, has submitted that in all other States the candidates who have participated in the first round of counselling are permitted to participate in the second round of counselling and, therefore, the Medical Council of India cannot be allowed to contend that the candidate who has appeared in first round of counselling and has been allotted a seat, cannot be permitted to participate in the second round of counselling.
11. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1, 3 & 4 has submitted that for the purpose of determining inter se merit Pre.P.G. Entrance Test is held as students come from different universities and from different backgrounds. In order to bring the candidates at par and to determine their inter se merit, Common Entrance Test is held. It has further been submitted that in all the brochures, which have been relied upon by the petitioners, preference has been given on the basis of age. It has further been submitted that the higher age in case candidates secure equal marks is a universally accepted criteria to give preference to selected candidate and, therefore, Rule 1.19(2)(b) of 2010 Rules is not violative of Regulation 9 of Regulations. It has further been submitted that so far as validity of Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules is concerned the same is no longer res integra as the Division Bench of this Court in Arun Singh Yadav (supra) has already upheld the validity of para materia provision of aforesaid 2006 Rules. In support of his submissions learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical 8 Education Society vs. Government of A.P. and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 and Mabel vs. State of Haryana and others, (2002) 6 SCC 318.
12. Smt.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel for Medical Council of India has contended that after expiry of dead line fixed by the Supreme Court for admissions in medical course i.e. 30.6.2010, no admission in Post Graduate Courses can be granted. If any direction is issued by this Court at this point of time directing that the petitioners be admitted in any of the Post Graduate Courses the same would amount to midstream admission which is not permissible in law. She further submitted that merely because a vacancy in a particular course exists, the same cannot be a ground to fill up the seat. Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to 1.20(15) of 2010 Rules and has submitted that if a candidate does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects/courses available at the time of her/his counselling, he/she may give "opt for waiting" option in writing and his/her name will be placed in order of merit. If any seat falls vacant on or before 31st of May, 2010, in any Medical/Dental Colleges then the name of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit. It has further been submitted that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the seat offered to them in the first round of counselling, they should have submitted their option under Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules. In support of her submissions learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Subodh Nautiyal (Dr) Vs. State of U.P., (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 593, State of U.P. vs. Anupam Gupta (Dr), (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 594, Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 355, Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar (minor) and another vs. Union of India and others, (2005 ) 2 SCC 65, Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India, (2009) 2 ILR 1263, Shafali Nandwani vs. State of Haryana and others, (2002) 8 9 SCC 152 and Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1998) 6 SCC 131.
13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. In order to test the validity of the rules in question, it would be useful to first examine the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. The Parliament enacted the 1956 Act to provide for reconstitution of Medical Council of India and maintenance of Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith. The 1956 Act came into force on 1st of November, 1958. Section 20 of 1956 Act provides that Council may prescribe standards of Post Graduate Medical Education for guidance of the Universities and may advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for Post Graduate Medical Education throughout India. Section 33 of 1956 Act empowers the Council to make Regulations for conducting of professional examinations, qualifications of the examinations and the conditions of admission to such examinations. In exercise of powers under Section 33 read with Section 20 of 1956 Act, the Medical Council of India with the previous approval of the Central Government has framed Regulations called as Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
14. Regulation 9 of the Regulations read as under:-
"Regulation 9. Selection of Post Graduate Students. 1. Students for Post Graduate Medical
Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their academic merit
2. For determining the academic merit, the university/institution may adopt any one of the following procedures both for degree and diploma courses:-
i. On the basis of merit as determined by the competitive test conducted by the State 10 Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State Government or by the university/group of universities in the same state; or ii. On the basis of merit as determined by a centralized competitive test held at the national level; or iii On the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and their MBBS examination, if such examination have been passed from the same university; or iv. Combination of (i) and (iii):
Provided that wherever entrance test for Postgraduate admission is held by the State Government or a university or any other authorized examining body, the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical courses shall be fifty per cent for general category candidates and 40 per cent for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes.
Provided further that in non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall be filled by the competent authority and the remaining fifty percent by the management of the institution on the basis of merit."
15. Now, we may refer to rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules the validity of which is mainly challenged on the ground that the same is violative of Regulation 9 which prescribes a criteria for placement in merit list strictly on the basis of academic merit. The 2010 Rules are framed by the State Government for the purpose of holding entrance test of 2010 for Post Graduate Medical (MD & MS) Course, Post Graduate Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses in Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 1.19 of the 2010 Rules provides about the preparation of merit list. The validity of sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 1.19 of the 2010 Rules alone 11 has been challenged. The provisions contained in Rule 1.19 of the 2010 Rules reads as under:
Rule 1.19 Merit List:-
(2) Inter se merit In case two or more candidates obtaining equal marks in the entrance examination, the merit will be decided as per procedure indicated below:-
(a) A Candidate who scores more marks in Part 'B" of the question paper will be kept higher in merit.
(b) Candidates scoring equal marks even in part "B" of the question paper, then candidate older in age will be placed higher in inter se merit of such candidates."
16. No doubt from a reading of the provisions contained in Regulation 9.1 of Regulations it would appear that it provides admission in the Post Graduate medical courses strictly on the basis of the academic merit. Regulation 9.2 of Regulations provides modes for determining the academic merit. It further provides that the university or the institution may adopt any one of the modes mentioned in Clause i to iv of the Regulation 9.2. Regulation 9.2.ii of Regulations provides that academic merit of candidates may be assessed by a centralized competitive test held at the national level. Thus, Pre. P.G. Test is held in accordance with the Regulation 9.2.ii of the Regulations. Since the candidates who appear in the Pre. P.G. Examination come from different universities and different backgrounds, therefore, the Common Entrance Test is held with the object to create a level playing field for the candidates to adjudge their inter se merit. A close scrutiny of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules reveals that in case two or more candidates obtain equal marks then the merit has to be decided firstly on the basis of marks secured by candidate in part "B" of the question paper 12 i.e. the candidate who secured more marks in part 'B' of the question paper has to be kept higher in merit. However, if both the candidates secured equal marks even in part "B" of the question paper then the candidates older in age is placed higher in inter se merit. The age of candidate is prescribed as the last criteria for placement in merit, not the first criteria, as the first criteria is the marks obtained by a candidate in Part 'B' examination. From perusal of the rules framed by several institution/States which have been relied upon by the petitioners themselves we find that candidates have to be given preference on the basis of age if they secure equal marks. For instance, we may refer to Clause 12.2.C of the Rules framed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which provides that if candidates obtain equal marks in the examination, the candidate older in age would get preference. Similarly, the Rules framed by PGI Chandigarh annexed as Annexure-P-14 also contain similar provision. Same provision exists in the Rules framed by State of Karnataka as well as Banaras Hindu University. Therefore, it appears that in all the Entrance Examination Rules framed by various authorities, age has been made the basis for granting preference in case candidates secure equal marks. Therefore, the same appears to be a reasonable and acceptable criteria. That apart, we have no reason or justification to hold that the age which has been made one of the criteria where merit being equal could be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, it could be safely held to be valid and reasonable for determining the inter se merit where candidates secure equal marks. Thus, the challenge to the aforesaid rule is misconceived and cannot be sustained. The contention that the marks obtained in MBBS examination should have been made a criteria can also not be accepted as same would defeat the very object of 13 holding the Common Entrance Test. Besides that, Regulation 9 of the Regulations prescribes four different modes or procedure for determining the academic merit. One of the mode or procedure to determine the academic merit is by holding Common Entrance Test. Therefore, where the Common Entrance Test is held for determining the academic merit, the marks obtained in different examinations of M.B.B.S. become irrelevant as merit of all the candidates, who appear in the examination, are adjudged by applying uniform criteria. It is matter of common knowledge that the standard of education varies from Institution to Institution, University to University and State to State. There may be a situation that both the candidates have passed the M.B.B.S. from the same college but it would be exception to the general rule and that cannot be a basis to hold the rule invalid.
17. For yet another reason challenge to the validity of rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be sustained as challenge to validity of the rule can be entertained only where it is found that the impugned rule suffers from any legal infirmity, being wholly beyond the scope of the rule making power or being inconsistent with any of the provision of the parent Act or amounts to infraction of any provision of the Constitution. Our view find support from the judgment of the apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543. In para 29 of the judgment the apex court has held that the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational 14 institutions and the departments controlling them. The apex court further observed in para 29 that it would be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one, were to be propounded. The apex court further cautioned that the court should as far as possible avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. In the case in hand learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out such infirmity in the impugned Rules. Therefore, in view of the above exposition of law made by the apex court, rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
18. Now, we may advert to the challenge made to the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules which provides that if a candidate has already been allotted a seat in the first round of counselling he would be prohibited for participating in the second round of counselling. The validity of similar Rule was under consideration before the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2001 SC 2800. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the report while upholding the validity of rule has held as follows:-
"4..........we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta's case (AIR 1994 Delhi 108 (supra) and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain's case [1998 (3) ESC 2016] is in accordance with the reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and 15 thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat become vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period."
19. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, Division Bench of this Court in Arun Singh Yadav (supra) upheld the validity of Regulation 9.9. of M.P. Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006, which is in para materia with Rule 1.20 (16) of 2010 Rules.
20. The Supreme Court in Mabel (supra) while considering clause (18) of Information Brochure of Kurukshetra University which provided that candidate already admitted in Medical or Dental College will not be considered eligible for admission to courses held in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5. A plain reading of the aforementioned clause shows that a candidate who was already admitted in a medical or dental college would be ineligible for admission in the other course. The said clause at times will operate harshly as in the case of the petitioner but it is meant to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admission should not abandon the studies after the commencement of that course to seek admission in another course which is in public interest, for otherwise it would result in the wastage of the seta in the course in which he has taken admission, and further, such a change would deprive another eligible candidate from seeking admission to the other course. Obviously, the intention of the authority concerned in framing clause 18 appears to be to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admission with his free will in any course (MBBS or BDS) should complete that course and should not change his mind in midstream. It, therefore, follows that the bar is intended to be operative during the period of the 16 course in which a candidate has taken admission..........."
21. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal (supra) is of no assistance. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with Rule 2.2.3 of the Rules contained Information Brochure of Preference System for Admissions to Health Science Courses of Maharashtra which required the competent authority to follow the preference system for admission for allotment of seats not only in the first round of counselling of admission but also in each round of admission. While considering the said Rule the Supreme Court observed that firstly merit of the candidate is to be considered and then preference exercised by him while allotting the seat has to be considered. Thus, for the aforementioned reason the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. Besides that, if a candidate is not willing to take admission to any of the subject courses available at the time of his/her counselling, it would be open for him/her to give option in writing and to "opt for waiting", as provided under rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules. Rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules reads as under :
"1.20(15) : If any candidate who does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects/courses available at the time of her/his counselling, he/she may give "opt for waiting" option in writing and his/her name will be placed in order of merit. If any seat fall vacant on or before 31st May, 2010, in any Medical/Dental Colleges in any subject, the name of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit at the time of allotment of vacancies arising due to any reason for admission of the said category."17
Therefore, in view of the above provision, rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable because if a candidate exercises option under rule 1.20(15) of the 2010 Rules and has given option "opt for waiting" in writing, his/her name will be placed in order of merit. In the event of any vacancy candidature of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit.
23. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons and in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court as well as by Division Bench of this Court, we upheld the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules. Consequently, the challenge to validity of this rule also must fail.
24. For yet another reason, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Regulation 10A of Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India which have statutory force provides that duration of P.G. Course shall be of three years. P.G. course has already commenced from 1st July, 2010. In Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 held as follows:-
"29. A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their aliments during the course of their study."
25. Similarly, in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh (supra) (2002) 7 SCC 258 as well as in Shafali Nandwani 18 vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another vs. Union of India and others (supra) the Supreme Court has emphasized the need to strictly adhere to time schedule and has observed that there should not be midstream admissions. In Mridul Dhar (supra) the Supreme Court has held that time schedule prescribed for grant of admission to P.G. vourses shall be strictly adhered to.
26. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in all the three petitions. We, therefore, dismiss the same but without cost.
(S.R.Alam) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
RM/YS/HS
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 8337/2010
Dr.Pooja Mathur.................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others.............................. Respondents
Writ Petition No.9619/2010
Dr.Ritu Agrawal............................................ Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others................................ Respondents
Writ Petition No.6321/2010
Dr.Sambit Pradhan and others........................ Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and others............................... Respondents
O R D E R for consideration
Chief Justice
19
__/10/2010
HON. SHRI ALOK ARADHE J
JUDGE
__/10/2010
ORDER
Post for : __/10/2010
Chief Justice
__/10/2010