Karnataka High Court
Dr.C.S.Manohar Mbbs.Ms vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY, 2010 ©
BEFORE : |
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 22000- 22001 OF 2010 10 (s- RES)
Oe NN Ee a UE a
C/W_W.P. 2001 18 OF > OF 20 4018 -RES)"
IN W.P. 22000-2200] /10:
I Dr. 11S PRAKASII
S/O. 1 ee SUIVAL: INGRUATL S
AGED SS. YEARS |
W ORKING AS ASSIST, LAN PROFESSOR IN
GENERAT, SURGE RY MYSORE MEDICAL
COLEE GI 2 AND dA SE:
MYSORE Pao sO o
2 DR. MA! LA
AGI: 36 YEE A aS.
~ WORKING AS SENIOR SPEC
I
NG i INSTI
CIAL
PULTE
MESH G U IDL EPPA TODAKAR
S/O. GUDLEP 2D A, D- PODAK: VR
IST
os GENERAL TH Netee SOUNDATIII
BEL GAU M DISTRI
(BV SRL MON PRASANNA, ADV)
Poo. STATE OF KARNATAKA
"BY TTS |
~ HEALTH AND GAMILY WEL
(MEDICAL EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDIIA. GANGAL LORE
ARTE
PETITIONERS
RRINCIPAL SECRECY ARY TO GOVT.
DEPARTMENT
-MS BUILDIN NGS
}
i
g
/
:
2 RAJIV GANDETH UNIVERSITY OF TIEALTL
SCTENCES. KARNATAKA, 410 TT BLOCK
JAYANAGALR, BANGALORE = 41
RED IBY PTS REGISTRAR.
3 ENTRANCE COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION
& ADMISSION TO POSTGRADUATE SHPE
SPECIALITY COURSES REP.BYTTS | ms,
MEMBER SECRETARY /RECISTRAR, RATV, ae
GANDIH UNIVER SSTTY OF HEALTIESC [ENCES, oO
KARNATAKA, 4°) PT BLGC IN JAVAS tAGARY .
BANGALORE ~ 41. .
4 DRY SU IVA KUMAR
S/O. P VENKATES!]
AGE 35 YEARS
WORKING AS TUTC re
INSTT TE-OP XEDHIRO UR OLOUY,
VICTORIA LIOSPEPAL ;
BANG ANA ORE. a .
DIR. OS) Me ANOHAR.
5/0. DE, B S CHI KK, AMOGA-
'AGE OY EARS > Ms :
WORKING | YAS T i d OR "
INS Pune OF NE a {RO UROLOGY
VICTORIA HOSPRIT AL.
© BANGALS ORE. . RESPONDENTS
nN
{By SRE. M KESHAVA REDDY. AGA FOR RI
DI
RL RAMI ESE. ADV FOR R2 & R3
SAP 'DODMANI. ADV FOR I
a 4
OORPESHA. ADV FOR 5)
SESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
--_ 226 AND) 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
W POCDERECTE RIE TO RS NOT PO CONSIDER CASES OF R4 &
ARS. AS IN-SERVICE CANDIDATES FOR SELECTION AND
ADMISSION TO POSTGRADUATE SUPER SPECIALITY
hotel
COURSE IN TH DISCIPLINE OF M.CLL UROLOGY
THE ACADE?
VIC YEAR 2010-11: AND [2
IN WLP. 20018/10:
BETWEEN
SHIVAKU MAR V a
S/O. VENKATESH P
AGE 35 YEARS
R/AT NO, 302,S5 V3
VISTIRANTIEE DETAMA
VICTORIA HOSP FPAL CAMPUS >
BANGALORE ~ 2
L
(By SRL SATISIL M DODM ANIL ADV). .
l RAV GANDI: LU NPy rE RSI Ty ib OR HEALTH!
ESL. 4A. PT BLOCK --
. AGAR. BA NGALORE ~ 4
REPIBY Fes. RE GISTRAR:
?
Is \JIN! GANDIHPDUNIVERSITY FOR HEALTI
6 4tep BLOCK. JAYANAGAR.
_ BANGA \LORE <4,
20 ~ PHE, sielaac TION COMMITTEE FOR
POSTE Ape ATIE SUPER SPECIAL
"ENTE enc io TEST 2010
-- RAGIY Gy \NDIII U NIVE RSITY FOR
EAL PL SCIE NC IS, JAYANAGAR
T BLOCK. BANGALORE 4.
Pet DR. MANOHAR CS
1ID.ONO. 28. KANAKAPURA ROAD
NEXT PO HOME SCHOOL. BASAVANG
Pry
THE. REGIS rea AND MEMBER SECRETE
1
u
Ssepgrasn™
DI
ARY,
1 SCIENCES
is,
abs.
AND ALSO AT DR. MANOHTER CS. TUTOR
INSTIPUTE OF NEP URL U ROL OGY
VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPU
BANGALORE.
wot
sont
Nae
sent
"a
ene
Nan?
Fane
re
ASST.
6 TH I PRR INCIPAL SECRIET, ARY
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFAR 0.
DE MENT (MEDICAI I EDUCATION) |
VIDHANA SOUDIIA. BANGALGRE, "RESPONDENTS
(Bv SRI. M KESHAVA REDDY AGA FOR RS
NK RAMESH. ADV FOR RE TO.R3"
ADV FOR R84 re
B ROOPESI LTA. ADV POR RS}.
226 AND 227°GR 7 ; HITUTTON OF INDIA PRAYING
rO DIR oT. CONSIDE RoTHHE CASE OF THEE
PETITIONER INS SRVICE QUOTA BY RELAXING 20
DAYS © - ING, THE 3 YEARS ELIGIBILITY
CRITTER! O
PHS ALTERNATIVES DIRECT Tile
ALE GULATE Tilk 3 YEARS ELIC ABIL ry
o wWICE QUOTA oe THE DAT OF
ROPE PURPOSE OF PGSSIceT; ANID ETC.
RESPONDENTS 5 1K
PERIOD FOR
STE SE PISPITIONS COMING ON POR PRELIMINARY
~ TE ARE NG, PHS DAY. PEE COURT MAD Ie THe FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The subject matter of these Writ Petitions relate to selection and admission of in-service candidates to the "Post Graduate Super Speciality Course in the discipline of MCh. -- Urology. against in service quota, for the Gandhi University. of Health Sciences; (for -shert., RGUES).
No The core question for decision making bs >. Whether three "years service in the definition of the-term "inservice candidate' in Rule 2 (dq) of the Kamataka, Medical Education Department (Deputation : of in-service candidates' LO. Post Graduate "Super Speciality Course! Rules 2006 isto be reekoned from the sdate-ok ently ity 'servic® in the cadre of Tutor eles, upeo the date of commencement of the Y academic osessiof of Post Graduate Super Specialty Coturse for the academic vear 2010-11?
- Bo Petitioners in W PP No.22000-01/2010 are Agsistinit Professors in the State Medical Departinent : having put in more than cight vears of service. while petitioner in W P No.20018/2010 also arraigned as respondent Not in W.P.22000-01/2010. 0 when on appointed a Tutor in the State Medical Department on 11.6.2007 reported on 29.6.2007. The fifth respondent ~ Dr. C.S. Manohar in Writ Petition No.22000-0 7/2610, entered the State service as a Tutor on 16.60-2607.> 4, The second respondent = RGUHS. issued a notification dt. 3.5.2610 ty pondack ay entrance test for idmission to Post Graduate 'Supe . Spec tality Course in M.Ch. Urotoue. "amonest other disciplines. with a calendar of évents fining. PO.6.Z010 as the last date tor on-line registrauien of applicati ion, 20.6.2010 as the date of Entrance Tests.7.7-204 Oas the tentative date for viva voce and announcement of sclection, and 2.8.2010 the date of coramencement of the academic session for the * déademic vear 2010-11. Under the heading 'cligibility'. it is Staked-tnat a person shall be cligible for admission to Post Graduate Super Speciality degree course only if
-he/she has not completed 48 vears of age as on the date fixed as the last date for submitting the application for i ~~ the entranee test. Appendix-I to the form of app dic ation issued by the RGUTEIS. requires in-service candidates to furnish information relating to the date ol CHEV TOs, service: number of vears of service, etc.: to be verified by"
the Head of the Department. and cortity. a candidate is cligible to applvtor tlre cri brane. te 2010. - The petitioners cud respondents filed. an lications through proper chariiel indicating the date of their entry into service while respon ents 4 and 5 though, fell short of Jew days, for "completion Of three years SETVIEE "as on the lest date "of filing the applications. nevertheless, sited that they had completed three years of service. ©.
5 : "Drv Shivakt iar, petitioner in . Wp 2001 sieeio received a Short Message Service Shs) drom RGUHS at 4.59 pm. on 9.6.2010 stating "hat lis application having been considered as in-
service candidate though he had not compicted tree J. evears of service, was required to give an unde SOPHO RTAINIRNORY writing to be considered tnder the I-service quota, which was responded by letter dt. 10.6.2010 "stating that his application could be considered, uiiter she general quota for Karnataka ine (he. Entrance:
eXanlnation 2OlO if not cligible 'ander the Service quota due to technical reasons and further requested if RGUEIS could relax the basi. Chaite "ain. avcept his application under the ieservice qtrota." }
6. The petiticnerssand respondents having filed their applications throwsh proper channel, appeared in the examineiion held en 20% of June 2010 along with other carididates. -whereatter the second respondent issuce a list-ol cligible candidates, Annexure '1' relating 10 cntrdince.quota and Annexure FE relating to in-service "grote". Petitioners Dr. HLS. Prakash and Dr. MathanitesH Gudleppa Podakar in WP No.22000-01/10 Having secured 51 and 50° marks respectively. were placed at SL Nos. 6 and 7 while Dr. V. Shiveakumuatr.
/peutioner in WP NO.20018/10 arraigned as respondent No.+ in WP / No22000-01/10 having secured 7O marks. was placed at Sl No.32 in the entrance quota list, The
--
[ % MH respondent ~ Dr. C.S. Manohar having: sccered 68 | marks (highest), was placed at Sl, No.1 ii thé irieservice™ list.
7. The State Goveeninent, by notification dt. 12.7.2010 indicated tae disiribrition, of seats"in respect of various Post Graduate 'Super' Speviality Courses reserved lorsilieservice and Gatrance quota. wheretunder SIX Seats, were reserved Tor bi-service quota in the discipline of U rology. _
8. s De. Shivakuinar having filed = W.P.NO. 2001 8/ LOon ihe premise that he ought to be treated as at, In-service candidate. this Court. on 12.7.2010 "direeted RGUNS to permit the petitioner to appear in the viva-voce to be held on [St July 2010 as an in- service candidate and keep in abeyance the results of all the in-service candidates.
i), The Karnataka Viedical Feducation Department (Deputation of in-service candidates to Post Graduate Super Speciality Course) Rules 2006 (for-slrart. Rules') as amended by (ameudmieit) Riles 2007." applies to selection of in-service cCairdidates. "ror admission to Post Graduate Super Speciality, Course iy medical colleges in .Karnatakd. against 'seats reserved under Government "quote. 6 The. term "in-service candidate' is defined under Rrle 2(dyt6 reads thus:
"(d) tn-Servicé- candidates" means a person in the Service of the State Government working in ihe | Medical education Department in the cadre of Tutor, ~Leeturer, Assistant Professor, » Associate "Professor or Professor in the Goverument Medical college and General Duty
-- Medical 6 Officer, Specialist and -- Senior 'Specialist in Health and Family Wellare Services Department. IMOs with PG (snalification. Deputy Stirgeon. SUPrBCOn "avorking in ESHM)S under Labour Department.
under the control of Health & Family Welfare Department and Tlealth & Family Welfare ners NSS _ Reele 4{9) runs thus:
Department = (Medical = Education). whose probation period is declared to have been completed satisfactorily and who has put ina ~ minimum period of three vears of service." Ritle 3 reads thurs:
(2) Any in-service candidate who-has taken the entrance test andawlio is deckiredto be qualified for adniisssion 6. post-gradiite. Super Speciality Courses "by the Entrance "Pest Committee. shall be cHgible™.for. selection.<to be deputed for acquiring. Post-Graduate Super Speciality SOMES toed . : ' i Course among otler in-service candidates based Jon merit-curn-seniority."
4
Os OX NNN (©) An in-service candidate who is above
-- fofty cight vears of age as on the last date "specified for the receipt of applications for chivance test. shall not be eligible -- tor Ow deputation to Post Graduate Super Speciality Courses under these Rules."
"6. A list of in-service candidates sel lected "for. deputation to post cravat. super "Spaelality shall be prepared by ihe, selection. "committee on the basis of arerit- Cc um: ae niority which shall be determined on the basis « t marks secured in the | en trance: te st and, the wwe 'iphtage being given AS one, mark for ea h year of completed service subject Lo" "a ghaximnuin of ten marks. for Caeh ac ade nic year. The list shall be published i in ihe, netic e board of the Directorate of Merc lical Education, Rajiv Gandhi University OL. Heaith | Sciences and the Government " Medical Colleges."
(emphasis supplied) 1G, The Rules as amended by (Amendment) Rules _ 2007 gazetted on 2.11.2007 substituted the words "period of 10 years of service" to read as "period of 3 "for-adim 13 vears of service" in Rule 2(d). while the words "seniority cull diter-se merit" was substituted as "meri. eum seniority" in rule 3(2). and in Rule 6 to sclbstitube the. words "seniority cum) merit". tbe words" Siwerit cum' seniority which shall be determines on the basis of the marks secured in the entrance testand weightage being:
given as one mark lor cach: vear-ol conrpleted Service. subject to a maximuny of 1 Q@wmarks™ ll. Leamcd counsel fort pe _petitioners i W P No.22000-0 1720 Comenels that neither Dr. Shivakumier the petitioner "in we No.20018/10 arraigned as respondent No.4 ior respondent No.5 in WP Nos. 22000-01/10 had the eligibility as on 10.6.2010 the last ~date téregister applications on-line for the entrance test Essierrto Post Graduate Super Speciality Course in "the discipline of MCh. - Urology. having centered ° Joservice as Tutors on 29.6.2007 and 16.6.2007 respectively, did not comiplete three years of service as 14 definition of the term 'in-service candidate' to contend that minimum period of three vears of service orbs to be reckoned as commencing from the date of joining. service in the cadre of Tutor.
line registration of the application and any. ether interpretation would render. oltose. Rule 2. fdjyo tin addition learned counsel poties out to Salstule (5) of Rule 4 to contend that tive Rale niaking. authority in its wisdom while denying the peniesit oF admission to in- service candidat': abave 4S years of age as on the last date especitied 'lor receipt "or the application for the cntrariee LCSt. isa Clea indication that the cut olf date to reckon minimum period of 3 vears service for an in- oe service candidate bight to be the last date for receipt of me applications.. "Learned counsel lastly. contends that qualification and eligibility being sacrosant cannot be ~ diluted,on a broad based understanding to inchide candidates who had not completed minimum period of three years service as on the last date for receipt of applications. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following reported opinions of (he Apex Court +:
(1| ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA © AND OTHERS! (2)ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA. AND OTHERS vs. CHANDER SHEKHAR AND ANOTHER? | (3) BHUPINDERPAL | SINGH AND . OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND. OTHERS'
12. Sri DN. Nanjurtcla Reddy. learned senior counsel lor respondent No.5. -"Or. ©. S Manohar contends that the period of Soyears service Contained in the definition of the-ferm, "n-Serviee candidate" in Rule 2 (d) ought to "be reckoned, from the date of chiry into service upto the "date. oF comnmicncement of the academic session which in this case is 2.8.2010. According to the learned 4 "application -- Annexure IR 16 senior counsel. the Rule making authority in its wisdom amended Rule 2(d) and Rule 3S to cusure -relatively young in-service candidates having superior, meérif-iier:.
se rather than seniority cum-nicrit. are éxtended the' benefit of the in-service quota. while allowing candidates less than 48 vears of age aud-.in scivice for more than 3:
years to compete .with the voungsters.. by adding weightage of one mark persyear of.service by amending Rule 6 of the Rules) Learned. senior counsel contends that the decisions of dacsApex.Court referred to by the learned "eounscel forthe petitioners are in cases of recruitment based on "ediacational qualification as the eligibility Griteria. which are inapplicable to the facts of ¢ os these scases relatit¥e to cligibility criteria not based on 'ceducationab. qualification. Learned senior counsel is candid-in his submission that RS in Appendix | to the to the statement of cones _Obiections. did mention 3 vears against column 'No. of evears of service rendered'. as on 11.5.2010. the date of Sp 7 application, though short of five davs since the date of entry into service was 16.6.2007. nevertheless eannot be a serious mistake or a discrepancy disintiting the 5" respondent to a consideratiou.ol his application.
13. Sri Satish Doddamathi. learned Covinsel for, the petitioner in W P No.20078/10 while adopting the submissions of the tearned serior counsel adds that the State Government having fixed the sut off date of 3 vears. as ormsthe® date 6f cvomunencement of the academic, "Session. Be. °° 2.8.2010. for in-service candidates: following tic nerms prescribed by All India Institute of Mcdicals.Sciences {AIIMS) and National fnstftute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), the petitioner as well as the respondent © NGA DE CS. Manohar are cligible to seek admission under the in-service quota.
I4. Sri M. Keshava Reddy. learned Additional 'Government Advocate contends that the State KR 18 Government being alive to the possible dispute that mav arise. as the definition of "inservice candidate, does not preseribe the cut off date. Was "taken sah, conscious decision to fix the. cutolf date "as. the"
commencement of the academic acabionis AS hasbeen done by two premier instititions.. ceamely.. NIMHANS:
and AIIMS.
15. Before considering the tacrit-or demerit of the contentions: advanced by the learned counsel for the parties there is a becd-to, appraise the legal position in the reported virions of the Apex Court.
(J in .REKHA CHATURVEDI (SMT.)-V- UNIVERSITY "OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS? the Apex Court having regard to selection of University 'tedcherse. = "repelled the Selection Committee's consideration of requisite educational qualification as ssepnNERENN RE on the date of selection rather than the last date for filing applications by observing thus:
"TO. The contention that the required:
qualifications of the candidates: showle be. examined with reference to he. date "OF"
selection and not with relereee tovthe last date for making applications lias ony to be stated to be rejected. Phe'daite of seleetion is invariably uncertain. : ms Ine absence of knowledge of sueh date the eaiididates who apply dor'4he posts Wwould be-smable to state whether. they are qua iified-for the posts in <paestion Gbnot. th they are vet to acquire the qualifications. ~ Uniess the advertisement mentions. «@ fixed date with reference to which. the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise. it would not be possible for the cahdidaies who do not possess the requisite qualifications in pracsenti even to make "applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence. viz. even those candidates who do not have the gualifications in 20 pracsenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the numberof a applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may teave open a Brope:. lor malpractices. The date of selection midy, 'os ont gn oe ne beat be so fixed or manipulatech ds to enter some applicants "aud reject. : oCaers. arbitrarily. Henec, inthe.absence of.alixed date indicated Ws ity, the advertisement/potificatian os inviting applicat (inns with Felerence. to which the reqrisite qtialilieaious should be judged. the only "ecriein date for. the scrutiny of the 4 qualifications willbe the last date for making ine "applicidions, We have. therefore, 10 hesitation in holding that when the Sclection C omlmittGe.in fhe present case. as argued by shard Manoj Swarup, took into consideration ie, req wisite qualifications as on the date of selechon rather than on the last date of ; preferring applications. it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the seleclions in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may 21 also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in ALP. Public Service Commission... Hyderabad v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC, 669 and Diswiet Collector & Chairmar. Vizianagaram Social Welfare 'Residential. School Society. Vizianagaram. vu. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 8 SCC 653).
(ii) The observation of a larger Bench of the reads thus:
6. XeX xX. THe proposition that where applications are "called for prescribing a partictilar date as the last date for filing the «pplicat ios thie eligibility of the candidates shat have 10 be jadged with reference to that date aiid that) date alone, is a well-
tstablished one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such presevibed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement Or notification issued /published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by ae PP ed such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition ts ~ that if it were known that persons, who. obtained the qualifications -- after: Lhe prescribed date but belore the date "ol". interview would be allowed to-appear tor the, interview. other similarly ~ placed persons:
could also have applice. Just because Some of the persons-had applicd 'notwithstanding that they had 'wot. acetiircd "the, prescribed qualifications by. tie preseribed: date, they could fot-have:beei treated ona preferential basis. Pheimapplications ought to have been ejected "al. the. ineepton itsell. 'This proposition is midisputable and in fact was not doubted oF disputed in the majority judgement... "Thrs is also the proposition adfirmed in Reicha Chaturvedt v. University of Rajasthan (1993 Supp (3) SCC 168). The reasoning in the majority opinion that by afowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview. the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is. with respect. an impermissible B 23 justification. [t is. in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on i. the face of the record. [In our opinion, R M. . Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of t} ic Hig Court) was right in holding that "thi e. 83°.
respondents could not have been allowed to, appear for the interview."
Git) So also the opinion "ol the Supreme Court, following a line of precedents in Bhuperdra Pal Singh's 7aSse (supraj r read is is thus: -
3 writing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ai apn Sharma v. Chander Sheichar.((1997).4° SCC 18). A.P. Public Service Chminission vu. B. Sarat Chandra a 990} 2 SCC 669. District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ((1990) 3 SCC 655). Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan (1998 Supp (3) SCC 168). M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India ((1993) 2 SCC 429} and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P. Al lahabad vb. Alpana he 24 (1994) 2 SCC 723) the High Court has held
(i) that the cut-off date by reference to whieh' the eligibility requirement must be satistied a by the candidate secking a public.
cmployment is the date appointed py the~ relevant service rules and if rere be 0 Cutts . olf date appointed by the rules (hen, such: | date as may be appointed for the puepose in the advertisement callin for applications:
Gi that if there be noi such -daie appointed then the eligibility criteria sliall be applied by relerence.16 the last date appointed by which the: applications, hive 10-be received by the x wompetcntuthority. "Phe view taken by tie High Court is Supported by several decisions . Ms . . : ro .
oF this Court 'ane is therefore well settled and henée cannot be found fault with. However. there areeertain special features of this case whuch-need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Avticie 142 of the Constittution vested in this » Court so as to advance the cause of justice.
14.) Th view of several decisions of this Court relied on by the Hieh Court and op abexvaezerayl ay f spubeverbrnvasrey te fepes goer trgserteerl .
referred to hereinabove. it was expected of the State Government notifving = the vacancies to have clearly laid down and:
stated the cut-off date by reference to which, the applicants were required to satisty theis out on behalf of the several "appellant petitioners before Ahis 'Court thet othe, practice prevalent fb Panjab has been 'io determine the eligibility, by 'relerciive, lo thie date of interview and there=2ire"imuinerable CASES wherein such candidsies Fave been secking @ni ployment as 'were tot eligible on thor date, of unakiig. the ipplicalions or tie Last hats pooabeek.. far receipt
- beets ede. Pee A tee 4g phage Pie festa :
Pptbo Cote es Pha AN ness DPR ENS OT segtiring eligibility' qualillesttioia one cid acquire the serie by the time they were Several such persons Dave bec appomted hava eae ratte . Taeyes siys texeyeoed lasuly TILE. BRO OLTE Pleis & pallenved tiled appointments and they have comtinwucd to be i public emiplovinent. Such a loose practice. though prevalent. cannot be allowed to be continued and must be treated to Have been put to an end. Phe reason is apparent. "Phe applications made by such candidates as were not qualified but were ins the process of acquiring cligibiliny qualifications would be -- difficult Lo be . scrutinised and subjected tothe process: of approval or climination anc.wotld-. only. result in creating contsion aud-uncertainty, dicants who would Many would be such apy be called to face. intervie. but.shall have to be returned blake if they. Lilled to acquire requisite cligibility qualifications byw the time of interviesy.. In.our-opinion the authorities of the State should be. ticd down to the principles "governing the.-cut-off date for testing the. cheibiliiy qaalifications on the ¢ principles deducible trom the decided cases of thissCourt and 'Stated hereinabove which "have now to-be.éreated as the settled service jurisprudence."
"16. Rule 2(d) as it stood prior to the amendment "spreseribed LO) vears of service fer an in-service candidate to seek admission to Post-Graduate Super bo ~~ Speciality Course on deputation and by amendment the period was reduced to a minimum of three vearss while Ride 3(2) was amended to substitute the word 'SCHIOTIEY--.
cum-merit' to "merit-cum-seniority: and Rule.@ entitliag - in-service candidates to weightage of one mark for every years of service. A conjoint reading: of the amended rules. it is possible. to iifer 4that the Rute making authority. perhaps. sought to hone-in the best of young talent on the-basis of their comparative superior merit, certainly in public interest... while extending the benefit of one mark-per year of completed service for those who were less.than "48 vears ave and had completed more than three vears . Of service. Although learned . Srcounsch for 5! respondent submits that seniors in "the -departinent when pitted against juniors would certainty be at a disadvantageous position since juniors "wouldsliave had the benetit of latest trends in medicine "While the seniors, with expericnee. and despite adding weightage of one mark for every academic vear if did not 28 Measure Up to coniparative merit. must be treated as deadwood, that by itself and nothing more 'eannot advance the case of the respondents. tov beckon' three. years of service by extending the cut off date tiptoe the"
date of commencement of the acadeniic Session be. 2.8.2010.
17. Admittedly. rufe 2(¢) ofthe Rules specifies completion of a minima ot thrée years service for an in-service candidate 10 be eligible to-apply for in-service quote. In, Apjpendis. to the application the applicants are required to, state the date of entry into service and the niamber 'oly cales of service rendered. Fifth respondent. admittedly stated that he entered service on 16.6.2007™. while Dr.Shivakumar. -- petitioner -- in " W.P.NO-!20018/10 entered service on 26.6.2007 and therefore?as on 106.2008 late date of registering the application. had made a wrong statement of fact of having completed three vears of service, while as a matter of fact they fell short of three years bv a 29 days. The applications furnishing incorrect statement of facts. at the threshold were required to be-rejceted., entrance test 2010. prescribed eligibility norm entitlhig > a person who has not completed 18-years of age as on the date fixed as the last, date for submitéinig the application for the cntrancetest, SQ. also ist he eligibility for an in-service candidate This Conidition when read along with Ue infermation, to-be provided by an in- Service candidate in Appendix: lsupra, there is no merit in ihe "comention vas lori' of application did not provide jor a "Cut-off, date to reckon the completion of minimum™period of tree years service for in-service Candidates. Rul® 4(5) specifically provides that in- "servicer candidates above 48 vears of ave as on the last date specilicd for receiving applications for entrance test "care in¢ligible for deputation to Post-Graduate Super . Speciality Courses under the Rules. 'Thus cut off date being last date for receipt of the application. is equally the 5! respondent and Dr.Shivakiumar were eligible by Nd a2 applicable to in-service candidates who have not completed a minimum: period of three years service as on the last date for reecipt of the application: Theadige. "What sauce is good for the goose.is good for gander". in the circumstances is apposite. a tinal is 80 there ean be no justification for the very Same in-service candidates:
who have not completed miniaint period of three years service as on the last date ic register application on- line. for the entrance testy to. be-extended to the date of commencement Ot -the-ecademie session. In my opinion if the contentions advaneed by the learned Senior counsel are aecepted>. H would lead to invidious discrimination. amongst in-service candidates. The on, contention when tested on the anvil of the postulates of © Article L4-or.tle Constitution of India. must necessarily fail.
18. Hence there is no merit in the contention that z fixing the cut off date to reckon mininiim period of id ae --
three years service as on 2.8.2010 the date of commencement of the academic Session.
19. The decision of the department oF. the State.in > reckoning 2.8.2010 the date of cofameneemet of the academic session as the completior.of minimum period. of three years service for ai-jieservice Carididate, must suffer the consequences, Gi) AHMS. in .itS prospectus. for PG/Post- Doctoral Courses fixed 19.12.2009 as the date for. declaration ol final result in the CSamilation Sehedtude -and in the note to Educational 2 queditications under the nomenclature 'Eligibility' stated thus:
"MCh. Note The candidate who are likely-to complete three vears requisite tenure = dnd degice by 30" January 2010 may also apply. "However. the candidates who complete their three years requisite tenure after 30"
Jimuary 2010 are not eligible to take up this exanination"
Sad h Gi} As regards the requirement oof qualifving cxamination for various medical, courses and more appropriately to. Super Speciality in NIMHANS. the commencementor - courses fixed as 2.8.20 10..permits candidates who are awaiting results to appear forthe:
entrance test subject to production, of proof of having passed the examination. "in writing, issued by the University.6n er before-the date of commencement of Course..." -
In the facts and circunistanees of these petitions and ma more appropriabery Ruic-4(5) ~of the Rules. there is no justifeation. forthe. State ie-lfollow what AIIMS and NIMHANS considered as Gut off dates.
20. Having regard to the opinion of the Larger "bench ef the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma's ns *but 6 case (supra): it cannot/be said that the proposition that where applications are called -- for prescribing a "spartictilar date as the last date for filing the "applications. the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date. being well *corrected vide chamber order €4.20.6,.2014 ae RMR 33 established. applics on all its fours to the facts of these cases. and therefore the answer to the,-question formulated supra is in the negative. No, 20018/10 is" rejected. The, interim | order™ di. 12.7.2010 in W.P.20018/2G610 is disSalved: Fhe second respondent ~ RGUHS, is: directed to open the sealed cover and re-do the process of "sciection of in-service candidates by rejecting the applications of the petitioner in W P No.20018/10 as ineligible in-service candidate, and 5! respondent = Dr. C.S. Manohar. as ineligible. There shail Be hosorder as to costs. Sd/-
JUDGE we a Se