Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the Rules, the academic year 2006 would commence from 2nd of May, 2006 and the petitioners will complete 5 years service before 2nd of May, 2006 and, therefore, they should not be barred from taking admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. He vehemently submitted that as a consequence of the impugned provision in Rule 8(5)(a) of the said Rules, an in-service candidate who will complete 5 years of service between 2nd of January, 2006 and 30th of April, 2006, will not be eligible for taking the entrance examination for admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses commencing from 2nd of May, 2006 and will have to wait for one more year to take the entrance examination for admission in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. He further submitted that a general candidate, who is not an in-service candidate, on the other hand, would not be eligible under the aforesaid Rules for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course unless he completes compulsory internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. recognized institutions and unless he is permanently registered with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I., but Sub.-rule 15(1)(B) provides the cut off date for such general candidates to complete general internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. Institution and for registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. as 3.0.4.2006. He submitted that the impugned Rules are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it provides for one cut off date for completion of 5 years service for in-service candidate as 1st of January, 2006 and another cut off date for general candidates for completion of internship from a M.C.I./D.C.I. recognized Institution and for obtaining a permanent registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. as 30.4.2006.

3. Mr. Tiwari cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.J. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ramjee Prasad and Ors. in which it has been held that if the authorities fix a cut off date which is capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark, the Court can quash the decision of the authority with regard to the cut off date. He pointed out that in Dr. Rupal Bandi v. State of M.P. and Anr. a Division Bench of this Court examined the rules for entrance examination for admission to the post-graduate courses in Medical colleges of Madhya Pradesh for the year 1992 which provided that candidates completing internship upto 31.12.1992 only would be eligible and candidates completing internship beyond 31.12.1992 would not be eligible and held that the cut off date of 31.12.1992 for deciding eligibility regarding completion of internship had definitely proper nexus with respect to selection of candidates for 3 years Pre-post Graduate courses in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for the year 1992 and the cut off date for deciding eligibility on the basis of completion of internship before 31.12.1992 was held to be not arbitrary or valid. He submitted that in the present case since the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, are to commence on 2nd of May, 2006, the cut off date for deciding the eligibility of the candidates for admission to such courses should be 30th of April, 2006 and not 1st of January, 2006. Mr. Tiwari also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officer Association v. State of M.P. and Anr. wherein it has been held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and that the said intelligible differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He argued that in-service candidates and general candidates may fall into two different classes and such classification may be based on intelligible differentia, but such intelligible differentia has no rational nexus with the provision in the Rules relating to cut off date on which the eligibility of the two different classes of the candidates is to be determined. He submitted that the provision in the impugned Rules providing for two different cut off dates for in-service candidates for completing 5 years service and for general candidates, for completing internship and for registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.CI./D.C.I. is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. The reply to this challenge of discriminatory and arbitrary cut off dates for in-service candidates and the general candidates as given in Para 5 of the return of the said respondents is quoted herein below:

5. The answering respondents respectfully submit that the State Government while adhering to the aforesaid guidelines from the rules for academic year 2004-2005 vide notification dated 7.11.03; whereby the cut off date of "1st January of year of examination" was inserted. This cut off date has the nexus with the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and the commencement of the Course. The answering respondent respectfully submit that for the academic year, 2005-2006 also the aforesaid eligibility criteria was repeated and presently also for the academic year, 2006-2007, the criteria i.e. "1st January of year of examination" has been retained. The answering respondents respectfully submit that there is no arbitrariness in fixing the date as 1st January. The petitioner while comparing herself with general candidates in respect of the eligibility criteria. The answering respondents respectfully submit that there cannot any comparison between the in service candidates and general candidates, they are two separate class. The cut off date for completion of internship and a registration there of with the Medical Council prior to commencement of a course, because the internship is permissible only when a student has passed a graduation examination and for purpose of registration as a Doctor with the Medical Council, It is necessary to have completed the internship. It is submitted that there is no extended out off date of passing a graduation examination which is the eligibility for affording for Post Graduate entrance Exam, whereas, in the case of in-Service candidates, he must have completed 5 year of regular service on 1st of January of year of examination. This criteria, it is submitted, has a nexus with the time schedule framed for selection and commencement of Course.

10. It will be clear from the reply in the return of the respondents quoted above that the cut off date of 1st January of the year of examination, within which in-service candidates are to complete 5 years of service, has been fixed taking into consideration the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses are to be commenced. If that be so, then the cut off date for general candidates to complete the internship after M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and to complete the formality of registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/ Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. should also have been 1st of January of the year of examination and not 30th of April, 2006. The reasons given in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents quoted above are that in-service candidates and general candidates fall into two different classes and therefore, in-service candidates and general candidates cannot be compared with each other and that for the general candidates passing of M.B.B.S. or B.D.S. in the eligibility condition, and completion of internship after M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and registration with M.C.I. or B.D.I. or Madhya Pradesh Medical Council or Dental Course is not an eligible condition. It is true that in-service candidates and general candidates fall into two different classes and there is a clear intelligible differentia for the classification of in-service candidates and general candidates into two different classes. In-service candidates are those candidates who have put in five years service in different establishments of the State Government as mentioned in the Rules and the general candidates are those candidates who are not in any such service. But the classification under Article 14 of the Constitution must not only be based on intelligible criteria but such intelligible criteria must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision. The impugned provision In the Rules is the cut off date of 1st of January of the year of examination within which an in-service candidate is tip complete 5 years of service to be eligible for entrance examination for admission to the 20% seats in the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses reserved for in-service candidates. The object of this provision was to stick to the time schedule within which the selection process is to be completed and courses are to be commenced as stated in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents quoted above. But the object for fixing the cut off dates within which the general candidates ought to complete the internship with the institutions recognized by the M.C.I./B.D.I. and to complete the formality of registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. institutions is also to ensure completion of the selection process within the time schedule and before the commencement of the courses but the cut off date for completion of such internship and registration for general candidates, as envisaged in the Rules is 30.4.2006 and not 1st of January 2006. If general candidates who complete the internship by 30.4.2006 and register themselves with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council and/or M.C.I./D.C.I. institution before 30.4.2006 are eligible for the entrance examination for admission to the Post Graduate courses, we fail to see why in-service candidates who complete 5 years of service before 30.4.2006 will also not be eligible for the said entrance examination for the Post Graduate Courses. In other words, in service candidates and general candidates may fall into two different classes, but the intelligible differentia on which in-service candidates and general candidates have been classified has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision.