Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Mayank Pyasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.6352/2018
JABALPUR
04.04.2018
Shri Sidharth Gupta learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned Dy. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly learned counsel for respondent no.4.
This petition was listed on 28.3.2018. On that date with a view to give the State sufficient time to respond to the prayer for interim relief, while allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioners, the case was directed to be listed on 3.4.2018 for considering the prayer for interim relief.
On 3.4.2018 again, on the request of the learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State, the matter is being taken up today for orders on the prayer for interim relief.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of S. S. Gupta and 5 others vs. State of M.P. and 7 others, (W.P Nos.4098/2006 & 44482/2006) decided on 25.4.2006 submits that the State was required to fix the same cut-off date for obtaining the necessary eligibility qualifications both, for the candidates appearing in the regular and general stream in the NEET Examination as well as for the in-service candidates. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision of this Court, the Court struck 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 down the different cut-off dates prescribed for obtaining eligibility qualification by the State in its P.G admission Rules.
It is submitted that in the aforesaid case, the cut-off date prescribed for in-service candidates to complete the necessary 5 years rural service for being eligible to apply and obtain admission in the 20% seats reserved for in-service candidates was 1st of January 2006 whereas the cut-off date prescribed for the general stream of students for completing the mandatory internship which was the necessary eligibility qualification prescribed, was fixed as 30.4.2006. It is submitted that this Court, after analyzing the provisions of the Rules and taking into consideration the stand of the State to the effect that both the candidates belong to different categories and, therefore, different dates could be prescribed, struck down the prescription of different cut-off dates for in-service candidates and general stream of candidates and directed that the same cut-off date that had been prescribed for the general stream of students should be adopted and prescribed to in-service candidates also.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and is not disputed by the learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State, that subsequent to the aforesaid decision of this Court rendered in the year 2006, the State has thereafter prescribed the same cut-off date for the general stream 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 of candidates as well as for in-service candidates in the Rules.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses (Degree/Diploma) Admission Rules notified by the State in the year 2015 & 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2015') as Annexure P-7. It is pointed out that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015, cut-off date prescribed for in-service candidates to complete 3 years rural service was fixed as 30.4.2015 which was the same date that was prescribed for the general stream of candidates to complete their mandatory internship. It is stated that similarly vide Rule 8 of the Rules of 2016, cut-off date for completing 3 years rural service for in-service candidates was again fixed as 30.4.2016 which was the same date that was fixed for general stream of candidates.
The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that pursuant to the law laid down by this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) which as become final and binding upon the authorities of the State, the respondent authorities had fixed the same cut-off date for in-service and general stream of candidates. However, from the year 2017 onwards they have again deviated from the law laid laid down by this Court and have prescribed 28 th February as the cut-off date for in-service candidates to complete 3 years of rural service whereas the cut-off 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 date for the general stream of candidates to complete their internship continues to be 31st March. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra), the act of the authorities in prescribing a different cut-off date for in-service candidates, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision.
The learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State submits that it is not disputed by the State that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) the State prescribed the same cut-off date for in-service candidates and the general stream of candidates. However, since the year 2017 admissions to P.G Courses are now made through a Common Entrance Examination i.e. NEET Examination and examination for making admissions are no longer been held by the authorities of the State. It is submitted that in terms of the admission schedule prescribed and notified by the MCI, counselling for admission to Post Graduate seats has to commence from 12th of March of each year. It is submitted that keeping the aforesaid date of counselling, notified by the MCI in mind and with a view to ensure that in-service candidates obtain the necessary eligibility qualification before the counselling commences, the authorities of the State have prescribed 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 28th February as the cut-off date for in-service candidates to complete the necessary 3 years of Rural service so as to avail of the benefit of incentive marks in respect of Degree Courses and enefit of reservation in admission to 50% seats in respect of Diploma Courses.
The learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State submits that as far as the judgment in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) is concerned, the same related to notifying the cut-off date for the purposes of obtaining the eligibility qualification for in-service candidates and the general stream of candidates whereas in the instant case the cut-off date has been prescribed only for the purposes of calculating the 3 years rural service for in-service candidates. It is submitted that the in-service candidates are not disqualified or debarred from appearing in the NEET examination in the general stream even in case they do not complete 3 years of rural service as on 28 th February of the year and would also be eligible for the incentive marks in the Degree Course even if he is disqualified for seeking admission on the 50% seats reserved for in- service candidates in the Diploma Course.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on the question of grant of interim relief.
As far as the order passed by this Court and the law laid down in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) is concerned and as far as the rule position as it continued uptill the year 2016 and the change that has been 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 brought about in the same after the year 2017 is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties i.e. between the learned counsel of the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
As far as the contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General regarding change in circumstances after 2016 on account of admissions being made through the NEET examination and the submission to the effect that in-service candidates would not be disqualified even if they do not obtain the necessary three years Rural service as on 28.2.2018 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the said submission is misconceived inasmuch as in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) this Court had clearly laid down the law that the cut-off date for possessing and obtaining the necessary period of service as an in-service candidate for being eligible for participating in the examination and the cut-off date for the general scheme of candidates should be the same as prescribing of a different date would amount to violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
A careful reading of the decision of this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra) makes it luminously clear that the old Rules were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as a candidate was disqualified thereunder for participating in the examination for obtaining admission in the 20% seats reserved for in-service candidates in case he had not 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 completed the necessary 3 years service as on 1 st of January of the year whereas the cut-off date for the general stream was fixed as 30th of April and in the present rules also an in-service candidate would be disqualified for seeking admission on the 50% Diploma seats reserved for in-service candidates in case he has not completed the necessary 3 years rural service by 28th of February, whereas the cut-off date of the general stream of candidates is 31st of March.
Apparently, the same position under the old rules of 2006, which was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has again been brought about by the respondents in the Rules of 2018.
Surprisingly, a perusal of the order passed by the Health Department on 16.3.2018 that has been placed before this Court, does not prescribe any cut-off date for in-service candidates as far as P.G Courses are concerned which is yet another unexplained anomaly in the Rules which prima-facie results in discrimination between Diploma and Degree Courses as far as in- service candidates are concerned.
In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the respondents that even after 28th February, the in-service candidates would not suffer any disqualification or would not be subjected to unequal treatment, not being supported by the rules, is hereby rejected.
It is also clear that subsequent to the decision of this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra), the 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 conduct of the State also demonstrates that the State understood this fact clearly and that is why from the year 2007 onwards upto the year 2016, the same cut-off date for in-service candidates and for the general stream of candidates was prescribed by them in the Rules. It is also apparent from a perusal of the decision in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra), the provisions of the old and new Rules, the MCI Regulations and the schedule of admission prescribed thereunder that there is no change in the same even after the year 2016 except for the fact that the body which is to conduct the examination is now the NEET instead of the State.
The MCI schedule also indicates that the examination to P.G. Entrance examination prior to the year 2017 was held in the month of January of the year and even after 2016, the entrance examination is being held in the month of January and that the admissions are required to be completed by the first or second week of May.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances the justification given by the respondents to change the cut- off date is prima facie unacceptable, moreso as similar contentions have already been rejected by this Court in the case of S. S. Gupta (supra).
From the analysis made above, prima-facie it is apparent that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.S. Gupta (supra) continues to hold the field and does not permit the State to deviate from the same 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.6352/2018 on the pretext that NEET is being conducted for making admissions in PG courses.
Looking to the aforesaid aspect, by way of an interim order, it is directed that the authorities shall treat 31.3.2018 as the cut-off date for in-service candidates for the purposes of determining as to whether they have completed three years Rural service or not in parity with the cut-off date that has been prescribed for the general stream of candidates. It is made clear that this Court has not and does not intend to interfere in any manner in the schedule of counselling notified by the MCI that has been followed by the State nor has any direction in that regard been issued and as all the information is already available with the counselling authority, they shall proceed further on that basis.
It is made further clear that the interim arrangement made by this Court would be subject to the final orders passed by this Court in the writ petition.
The learned Deputy Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 prays for and is granted three weeks time to file a return.
Certified copy today, with an observation that the Officer of the State, Dr. B.D. Khare, Deputy Director, DHS, Bhopal, who is present in the Court and in whose presence the order is dictated shall communicate the same to the authorities concerned immediately.
( R. S. JHA ) ( RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY )
JUDGE JUDGE
mms/-
Digitally signed by MONSI M
SIMON
Date: 2018.04.05 10:25:10 +05'30'