Orissa High Court
Dr. Basanta Kumar Behera And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 24 December, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988ORI124, AIR 1988 ORISSA 124, (1988) 65 CUTLT 113 (1988) 1 ORISSA LR 90, (1988) 1 ORISSA LR 90
Author: D.P. Mohapatra
Bench: R.C. Patnaik, D.P. Mohapatra
JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioners, medical graduates, intending to join postgraduate courses in different specialities in the Government Medical Colleges in the State during the year 1986-87, filed this writ petition praying to quash Clauses 2, 6,4,5 and 7.2 of the prospectus issued by the State Govt. and for further direction to the authorities to accept their applications and to permit them to sit at the entrance examination.
2. The essence of the grievance of the petitioners was that the aforementioned clauses in the prospectus wherein the applicants were required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by 30th June of the year of admission was fixed arbitrarily and since the petitioners could not fulfil the said requirements due to reasons completely beyond their control, they were deprived of the opportunity to appear at the entrance examination for selection for admission to post-graduate courses.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the case may be shortly stated thus :
The final M.B.B.S, Examination, 1985, which was to be held in April of that year, was held in the month of August. The petitioners appeared in the said Examination. The result were published in November, 1985 immediately whereafter the petitioners joined the course of Compulsory Rotating Housemanship. The period of housemanship was one year. It appears from the prospectus for the year 1986-87 that it was approved by the State Govt. in the Department of Health and Family Welfare on 8-8-86 and was issued in October, 1986. Therefore, the statement contained in Clause 2 of the prospectus that the academic session commenced from July and that the candidates were required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by the 30th June of the year of admission, were apparently incorrect. In Clause 6.4.5 of the prospectus it was stated that those who had completed compulsory rotating housemanship or five years of service by the 30th June of the year of admission should furnish a certificate from the competent authority evidencing that fact and in Clause 7.2 that 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. These requirements, according to the petitioners, were impossible to be fulfilled by them and all other medical graduates of the year 1985. It was the contention of the petitioners that arbitrary fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission prejudicially affected their career and future life. On account of the artificial cut-off date they were unnecessarily made to lose more than a year before getting a chance to get admission into the postgraduate courses and higher specialities. It was the further case of the petitioners that during the last three to four years the academic session for these courses never commenced before October and November of the year in question. Therefore, fixing 30th June as the cut-off date on the assumption that the academic session commenced from July was done without due application of the mind by the authority concerned and hence arbitrary.
4. The opp. parties, that is, the State Govt. in its Helath Department, Director of Medical Education and Training, Orissa, and the Principals of the three Medical Colleges in the State, while trying to justify the cut-off date, took the stand, inter alia, that the date was fixed taking into consideration the commencement of the academic sessions under the Statutes of the three Universities, Utkal University, Berhampur University and Sambalpur University to which the medical colleges are affiliated. Since the exact date when each of the Universities would hold the M.B.B.S. Examination could not be ascertained by the opposite parties, the cut-off date had to be fixed as aforesaid. The opp. parties have not denied the allegation that fixing the date made it impossible for the petitioners and the other candidates who has passed the M.B.B.S. Examination in 1985 to apply for admission to the post-graduate courses.
5. At the commencement of hearing the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opp. parties submitted that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners since the year 1986-87 for which the impugned prospectus was published is over. But, on an analysis of the matter, the learned counsel was constrained to admit that the controversy centering round fixing 30th June of the year of admission as cut-off date has persisted since long and that in view of some decisions of this Court holding that fixing that date was valid (See (1982) 54 Cut LT 77 : (AIR 1982 Orissa 120) (Dr. Sanjukta Panda v. State of Orissa), AIR 1986 Orissa 277 (Dr. Leena Das v. State of Orissa) and AIR 1987 Orissa 14 (Dr. Chitta Prasad Das v. State of Orissa) while another decision taking a contrary view that the date was arbitrary (See O.J.C. No. 1902 of 1984 (reported in AIR 1985 NOC 242) (Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra v. State of Orissa) the position should be resolved by decision of the larger Bench. The learned counsel for the parties in course of their submissions reiterated the stand of their respective clients as indicated earlier.
6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the prospectus for selection of candidates for R.H.S. assignment, post-graduate courses and higher specialities in the three Medical Colleges of Orissa is issued every year after it is approved by the State Govt. in the Health Department. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that while finalising the contents of the prospectus the authorities would take into consideration the facts and circumstances prevailing during the year in question. In fixing the cut-off date same relevant facts to be taken into consideration will be the date when the M.B.B.S. Examination was held, the date when the candidates who successfully completed it would complete their internship/ housemanship and be eligible to apply for admission to the post-graduate courses and the date when the post-graduate courses for the year in question is likely to commence. Care should be taken to see that the field of selection is as broad based as possible and large number of candidates are not kept out from the arena by picking up an artificial cutoff date. This will enable the authorities to make proper selection of meritorious candidates; the foremost consideration in the matter of selection to post-graduate medical studies.
7. During the year in question, i.e. 1986-87, the authorities while finalising the prospectus in August, 1986 were fully aware that the M.B.B.S. Examination which was scheduled to be held in the month of April, 1985 was held in the month of August and the results were published in November that year. They were also aware that the courses of studies could never commence before November, 1986 even making conservative estimate of the time taken for finalising the list of candidates.
8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, fixing 30th June as the cut-off date for 1986-87 can neither be said to be reasonable nor germane. In my view, it would, on the other hand, give an impression as if a date has been picked up out of the hat by completely ignoring the relevant factual positions prevailing then. As noticed earlier, the stand taken by the opposite parties is that the date has been selected considering the provision in the University Statutes that the academic year is to commence from the first day of June of the year and close on the 31st of May of the succeeding year. At the outset I may observe that no material has been placed to show on what basis these dates are fixed for the academic year in the Statutes. No material is also produced to show that the academic year is fixed by the authorities in the University considering the relevant facts from time to time. It is common knowledge and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the aforesaid description of the academic year in the University Statutes is followed more in its breach. Schedules for University Examinations are very often changed, inordinately long time is taken for declaration of results and there is a good bit of uncertainty about commencement and close of the academic session in the Universities. However, I need not delve further into the matter since that is not the question for consideration in the instant case. Suffice it to say, that picking up the cutoff date for the purpose of admission to the post-graduate medical courses on the basis of the academic session stated in the University Statutes ignoring the facts prevailing during the year in question would, in my opinion, be unreasonable and arbitrary. Such action would result, as it did during the year 1986-87, in keeping out a large number of candidates from the field of selection. This strikes at the very purpose of any process of selection, particularly for higher technical education like medical sciences. In course of his submissions, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate posed a difficulty said to be faced by the authorities while framing the prospectus. He submitted that it is not possible for the authorities to know the exact date on which the three Universities will hold the M.B.B.S. Examinations conducted by them. That was not the difficulty faced during the year 1986-87 since admittedly the result of the 1985 M.B.B.S, Examination was declared in November, 1985 and the prospectus was finalised in August, 1986. However, that difficulty may not also arise if a date like the first day of the month during which the prospectus is issued is taken as the cut-off date. We were informed at the Bar that this is the practice followed in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Here I may notice that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad reported in AIR 1986 SC 1877 examining the scheme for holding entrance examination for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses and post-graduate medical courses submitted before the Court by the Government of India held as follows :
"Thirdly, so far as the All India Entrance Examination for the Post-Graduate courses is concerned we are of the view that there should be only one examination in a year as suggested by the Government of India in the Scheme submitted by it. But we are of the view that it would not be right to insist that a student should not be eligible for appearing at this examination unless he has completed compulsory rotating internship practical training programme and obtained registration from the Medical Council of India or any of the State Medical Councils. That would greatly inconvenience the students. The final M.B.B.S. Examination is normally held in October/November each year and therefore every student has to undergo compulsory rotating internship practical training for a period of one year and then only he can be awarded M.B.B.S. Degree and he can obtain registration from the Medical Council of India or a State Medical Council. If therefore it is provided that a student shall be eligible to appear at the All India Entrance Examination only after he was (has ?) acquired M.B.B.S. Degree and obtained registration, it would mean that he would be able to appear at such Examination only after a lapse of about one year from the date of his passing M.B.B.S. Examination...... It would be better in our view if a student is allowed to appear at the All India Entrance Examination after the result of the M.B.B.S. Examination is announced and he is declared to have passed M.B.B.S. Examination, because at that date the theoretical part of the syllabus would be fresh in his mind and it would save him the trouble of reading the entire course over again after a period of one year....."
However, it is for the authorities in charge of medical education in the State to consider all relevant aspects and formulate an appropriate Scheme for admission to postgraduate medical courses and higher specialities. The position is that the particular cut-off date specified in the prospectus for the year depends to a great extent on the facts and circumstances prevailing during the period. Therefore, it cannot be said with finality that 30th June could never be a reasonable and proper cut-off date. It might have been so during the year in question if the M.B.B.S. Examinations were held in April, 1985 as scheduled and the results were declared by the end of June that year. But as discussed earlier, the factual position during the year 1986-87 was very much different and that was not taken into account by the authorities in fixing the cut-off date. As noticed earlier, this Court in the cases of Dr. Sanjukta Panda, Dr. Leena Das and Dr. Chitta Prasad Das, (AIR 1982 Orissa 120, AIR 1986 Orissa 277 and AIR 1987 Orissa 14) (supra) upheld 30th June as the cut-off date holding that since it was based on the academic year described in the University Statutes it was not arbitrary. These decisions for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs must be held to be incorrect.
9. The question that remains for consideration is the relief to be granted to the petitioners. The year for which the impugned prospectus was issued is over. The petitioners did not appear in the entrance test held for admission to the post-graduate courses that year. Nearly one year of the three years course is going to be completed. In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a direction should be issued to the authorities to make special arrangements for admission of the petitioners to the post-graduate courses which commenced in the year 1986-87. For the succeeding year the bar of eligibility would not operate so far as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, in my view, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the writ application. However, the decision in this case regarding fixation of the cut-off date and the observations made in this judgment shall be borne in mind while framing prospectus during the coming years. As noticed earlier, we decided to consider the question of fixation of the cut-off date because the problem has been a recurring one since several years in the past and apparently divergent views had been expressed by different Division Benches of this Court.
10. In the result, (for) the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons set out therein, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed subject to the observation made in the preceding paragraphs. There will be no order for costs of this proceeding.
Agrawal, C.J.
11. I agree.
R.C. Patnaik, J.
12. I agree.