Orissa High Court
Dr. Chitta Prasad Das vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 16 May, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ORI14, AIR 1987 ORISSA 14
Author: G.B. Patnaik
Bench: G.B. Patnaik
JUDGMENT G.B. Patnaik, J.
1. Petitioner who was an applicant for admission to the Post-Graduate Course pursuant to the prospectus (Annexure-1), has challenged the legality of Clause 2 and Clause 7.6.1 of the Prospectus and has prayed for a direction to opposite party No. 4 to entertain the petitioner's application for admission to the 2 years Post-Graduate Course as an inservice candidate.
2. The petitioner asserts that he completed his M.B.B.S. Course from the Utkal University as a student from the S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and thereafter completed the Rotating Internship from the said institution. The petitioner then joined a Diploma Course in Orthopaedics in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and successfully completed the same on 31-5-1984. He then joined the Government service in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Orissa and was posted "in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital with effect from 7-11-1984. After the prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Course for the year 1985-86 as per Annexure-1 was issued, he made an application on 30-11-1985 by which date he had completed one year of service, but petitioner's case was illegally taken out of consideration on the ground that he did not complete one year of service on 30-6-1985. The petitioner asserts that he being a diploma holder in Orthopaedics, the clause requiring one year's service to be considered for admission to the Post Graduate Course is not applicable and alternatively, it is contended that by the date of application he had completed one year of service, but yet his case was not considered on the ground that the completion of one year of service must be by 30th June of the year for which the admission is going to take place. The petitioner asserts that there is no rationale behind the date 30-6-1985 and such arbitrary action must be struck down.
3. It is contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered on account of the conditions in the Prospectus and, therefore, his case was rightly not considered. So far as the cut-off date was concerned, it was contended that there are three medical colleges within the State of Orissa and the three medical colleges are under three different Universities and necessarily, therefore, the examinations are not conducted simultaneously but on different dates. In order to bring harmony and keeping in view the academic year as defined in the Utkal University Statutes, the Government has fixed the cut-off date to be 30-6-1985, which cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioner's contention on this score is devoid of force.
4. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, it would be appropriate to take note of some of the clauses, of the prospectus. The prospectus is a combined one for admission to R.H.S. and to Post Graduate Courses. The total number of seats is 226 out of which 113 seats are meant for R.H.S. Course and 113 seats are meant for Post Graduate Course. Under the scheme of the prospectus admission to the R.H.S. Course is made on the basis of an entrance test and those who qualify they continue in the R.H.S. for one year and then ' are automatically admitted to the next year of the Post Graduate Course. So far as the admission to 2 year Post-Graduate Course is concerned, the same is meant for only inservice candidates and admission is made on the basis of criteria fixed in the prospectus provided they satisfy the minimum qualifications contained in Clause 7 and they are eligible in accordance with the principles laid down in Clause 8. We are concerned in the present case with the admission to the 2 year Post Graduate Course of the inservice candidates. The inservice candidates are those who are in Government service. Clause 2 of the prospectus which is relevant for our purpose is quoted hereinbelow in extenso : --
"The admission will be made once in a year. The candidates are required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by the 30th June of the year of admission."
Clause 6 of the prospectus prescribes the procedure for submission of application. Clause 6.4.5 states: --
"Those who have completed the rotating housemanship 5 years of service by the 30th June of the year of admission should furnish a certificate from the competent authority that he/she has completed the same by the 30th June of the year of admission."
Clause 7 of the prospectus prescribes minimum qualifications. Clause 7.6 stipulates that in addition to the requirements prescribed in Clauses 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, an in service candidate for Post Graduate study must have the further qualifications as prescribed in Clause 7.6.1 Clause 8 contains the eligibility clause. Since an interpretation of Clause 7.6.1 is involved in this case, it would be appropriate to quote Clauses 7 and 8 in extenso : --
"7. Minimum qualifications (for R.H.S. and P.G.) 7.1. The candidate must have passed the final M.B.B.S. Examination from any of the Universities of Orissa or from any other University if such qualification is recognised as equivalent thereto by the University to which the candidate is admitted on selection.
7.2. The candidate must have satisfactorily completed the compulsory Rotating Internship/Housemanship training in a Hospital recognised for this purpose by the 30th June of the year of admission.
7.3 The candidate must have obtained full registration with the State/Central Council of Medical Registration before he/she is allowed admission.
7.4. For M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery) a candidate must have M. S. Degree in General Surgery or Orthopaedic Surgery and for D.M. (Cardiology) must have M.D. in General Medicine or Paediatrics.
7.5. The disciplines of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Pathology come under the category of Nonclinical subjects and the rest are clinical subjects.
7.6. In addition to the requirements prescribed in Clauses 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, an inservice candidate for P. G. Study.
7.6.1. Must have worked as a Medical Officer under Government of Orissa/Government of India/Armed Forces/Public Sector Undertakings and other Organisations of Government of India/Government of Orissa for a period of 5 (five) years taken together by the 30th June of the year of admission.
OR Must have put in at least one year of service as a Medical Officer under Government of Orissa/Government of India/Armed Forces/Public Sector Undertakings and other Organisations of Government of India/Government of Orissa after having completed Resident Housemanship in the subject of study for a minimum period of one year/or must have obtained a diploma in the subject applied for from an Institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for the purpose/or in case of a candidate seeking admission into non-clinical subjects as per Clause 7.5 must have worked as Demonstrator/ Tutor/Research Worker under any of the recognised Institutions in the subject of study for a period of not less than one year.
8. Eligibility.
8.1. In addition to qualifications as prescribed in Clause 7, a candidate must belong to any of the categories prescribed in the following sub-clauses.
8.1.1. Must be a permanent resident of Orissa as defined in Resolution No. 38 Reforms dated the 18th Jan., 1949 of the Government of Orissa, Home Department as amended from time to time. Such candidates must submit a declaration in Form-II appended to the application form which should be attested by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector (O.A.S. II).
8.1.2. Candidates who have qualified from any of the Medical Colleges of Orissa and whose parents are serving under the Government of Orissa/All India Services belonging to Orissa Cadre/Universities of Orissa.
8.1.3. Candidates who have qualified from any one of the Medical Colleges of Orissa and belong to outlying Oriya speaking tracts as defined in Resolution No. 13411-Gen. dated the 5th March 1969 of the erstwhile P. & S. Department of Government of Orissa and have Oriya as their M.I.L. in H.S.C. Examination or equivalent examination. Such candidates should furnish an attested copy of the certificate to this effect from the competent authority.
8.2. Candidates claiming eligibility under Clause 8.1.2 should submit certificates to the said effect from the competent authority."
5. Mr. Sarangi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the second part of Clause 7.6.1 contains several distinct qualifications as the minimum requirement for admission to the Post-Graduate Course and one such qualification is "must have obtained a diploma in the subject applied for from an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for the purpose". The petitioner undoubtedly possesses this qualification having obtained the diploma in Orthopaedics from the well-recognised institution like Christian Medical College, Vellore and, therefore, he must be held to have the minimum qualifications as contained in Clause 7.6.1. We find no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 7.6. is an additional requirement prescribed for an inservice candidate. The second part of Clause 7:6.1 being read as a whole, in our view, stipulates thati the applicant must have put in at least one year of service as a Medical Officer either under the Government of Orissa or Government of India or Armed Forces or Public Sector Undertakings and other Organisations of Government of India or Government of Orissa and such putting in of one year's service must be after completion of Resident Housemanship in the subject of study for a minimum period of one year or having obtained a diploma in the subject applied for from an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for the purpose, or after working as Demonstrator/Tutor/ Research Worker under any of the recognised institutions in the subject of study for a period of not less than one year. The second part of Clause 7.6.1 contains three different qualifications as minimum qualifications but all the three are further governed by the condition that the applicant must have put in at least one year of service as a Medical Officer. In that view of the matter even though the petitioner did obtain a diploma in Orthopaedics from an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India, yet, he had not put in one year of service as a Medical Officer under the Government, We, therefore, unhesitatingly reject the first submission of Mr. Sarangi, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Mr. Sarangi then contends that in the second part of Clause 7.6.1. the date by which the candidate must have put in one year of service has not been stated, though it has been so stated in the first part of Clause 7.6.1 and in other different clauses in the prospectus. Consequently, since the petitioner had completed one year of service by the date of filing of his application, his application could not have been rejected on the ground that he did not complete one year of service by 30th of June of the year of admission. He further points out that Clause 2 of the prospectus which indicates that candidates are required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by 30th of June of the year of admission does not say that even the minimum qualifications contained in Clause 7 also must be acquired by 30th of June of the year of admission. In that view of the matter, so far as the minimum qualifications contained in the second part of Clause 7.6.1 are concerned, it is not the requirement that the same must be acquired by 30th June of the year of admission. We have read the prospectus as a whole and though there is some confusion, but the intentidn is apparent that the candidate must possess the qualifications and satisfy all other pre-conditions contained in Clauses 7 and 8 by 30th of June of the year of admission. It is true, as contended by Mr. Sarangi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that first part of Clause 7.6.1 explicitly uses the date 30th of June of the year of admission by which the qualifications prescribed therein must be acquired, whereas the second part of the said clause is completely silent. But reading the prospectus as a whole and also Clause 7 in particular, the only harmonious construction that can be put on Clause 7 is that the minimum qualifications prescribed therein must bo acquired by the applicant by 30th of June of the year of admission. Obviously the petitioner, did not put in one year of service as a Medical Officer under the Government of Orissa by 30th of June, 1985, he having entered the service on 7-11-1984 and we would, therefore, conclude that he did not have the minimum qualifications contained in Clause 7.6.1 by 30th of June, 1985 which is the year of admission in question and, therefore, we would reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score.
7. The only other contention which survives for our consideration is whether the fixing of cut-off date as 30th of June can be held to be without any basis or is arbitrary. As we have already stated earlier, the counter-affidavit of the opposite parties is that the said date has been fixed taking into consideration the academic year as defined in the Utkal University Statutes and as a measure of rationalisation for admission into the three different colleges under three different Universities. In fact, this point was considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sanjukta Panda v. State of Orissa, (1982) 54 Cut LT 77 ; (AIR 1982 Orissa 120). In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it was held:-
"There is also no force behind the contention that 30-6-1981 should not have been fixed as the date by which Rotating Internship should have been completed. As it appears, in the normal course those who passed the regular M.B.B.S. examination of 1980 should have completed the compulsory Rotating Internship by 30-6-1981. This feature is admitted by two of the petitioners. The petitioners have come forward with an explanation as to why they could not complete the Internship before 30-6-1981. We see no objection to the authorities fixing 30-6-1981 as the appointed date."
Apart from the aforesaid decision, we also independently come to the self-same conclusion as in our view, fixing of a date by which the minimum qualifications are to be acquired is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the authorities and such a date can be interfered with only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said date is arbitrary or capricious or has no rational basis. In view of the stand of the opposite parties in their counter-affidavit and after hearing the counsel for both sides, we are not in a position to hold that the date "30th of June of the year of admission" is a date which is either arbitrary or has no rational basis. On the other hand, we find that the said date has been fixed taking into consideration the academic year and usually when the academic session begins. Merely because in some year the Courses begin late or for some unforeseen eventuality there is delay in beginning of a particular course, the fixing of a date cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary. In our considered opinion, fixing of the cut-off date as 30th qi June of the year of admission is wholly justified and has been so fixed taking into consideration ail relevant factors and, therefore, it would be wholly unjustified for this Court to interfere with the said date. We would accordingly reject the submission of the learned counsei for the petitioner on this score also.
8. In the ultimate result, therefore, all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner fail and the writ application is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.
Behera, J.
I agree.