Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rachit Sinha vs Union Of India & Others on 8 May, 2018

Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel

CWP No.1024 of 2018 .

08.05.2018 Present: Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajesh K. Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.1.

Mr.B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.J.K. Verma, Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Ms.Ritta Goswami and Mr.Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.3 to 5.

CMP No.4173 of 2018 Allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.1024 of 2018 Notice. Mr.Rajesh K. Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr.Ranjan Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive notice on behalf respective respondents.

List alongwith connected matters, particulars whereof shall be supplied learned counsel for the petitioner in the Registry within two days.

As on date, process for filling up all the seats, in question, is underway. It stood initiated with the date stipulated in the prospectus for filling up application form which was 28th March, 2018. The extended second round of counselling for filling up PG(MD/MS) degree seats in Government and Private Medical Colleges of the State for the academic session 2018- ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:19 :::HCHP 2021 is now to be held on 10th May, 2018 and the mop-

.

up round is to be held on 15 th May, 2018 instead of 8th May, 2018. The dates, as originally stipulated in the prospectus, stood amended pursuant to the directions dated 3rd May, 2018, issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.357 of 2018, titled as Rachit Sinha vs. Union of India & others.

Today, relying upon the notification dated 5 th April, 2018, issued by the Medical Council of India, the writ petitioner seeks inclusion of the area, where he had served under the Government, to be "the rural area", in the prospectus. Well, this Court and, that too, by way of an ad-interim order cannot do so, for the simple reason that in terms of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India, it is for the State to identify the area and notify the same. The discretion, in terms of the notification, totally vests with the State Government/Competent Authority, which in the instant case has not been done so far.

Simply because the writ petitioner has been paid certain emoluments which are termed as "Rural Health Allowance", that fact itself would not ipso facto make the area, where the petitioner had served, to be "the rural area" for the purposes of getting admission into the academic course being Post Graduation in MD/MS degree course.

Mr.B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing .

for Medical Council of India, points out that the provisions of notification relied upon by the writ petitioner are in the nature of proviso and not a main provision and the right to determine any area to be rural for the purpose of admission into the academic course is that of the State. Prima facie, we are in agreement with the same Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refers to and relies upon following para (24) of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dnesh Singh Chauhan (2016) 9 SCC 749 :-

"24. By now, it is well established that Regulation 9 is a self-contained code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to medical courses. It is also well established that the State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the Central legislation and regulations framed thereunder, being a subject falling with Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution. The procedure for selection of candidates for the postgraduate degree courses is one such area on which the Central legislation and regulations must prevail."

Well, we do not find the observations reproduced supra to be helping the writ petitioner in any manner.

In these circumstances, we are not inclined to .

grant any ad-interim relief to the writ petitioner. As such, the application is dismissed.

           Copy dasti





                                         ( Sanjay Karol )
                                       Acting Chief Justice


     May 8, 2018 (K)
               r           to          ( Ajay Mohan Goel )
                                              Judge









                                     ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:19 :::HCHP