Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant admission in M.S. Gynaecology to the petitioner against the seat which is kept vacant vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed by Indore Bench of this Court. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to allow her to participate in the second round of counselling. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that petitioner has obtained M.B.B.S. degree with four gold medals. She as well as respondent No.5 appeared in Pre P.G. Test, 2010, conducted by the respondent No.2 in which the petitioner and respondent No.5 got equal marks i.e. 151 out of 200. It is relevant to mention here that in Part-B of the examination also the petitioner and respondent No.5 secured equal marks. Though the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 secured equal marks, yet the respondent No.5 was placed at Sr. No.58 in the merit list, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.61 in the merit list on the sole ground that respondent No.5 is older in age. One Dr. Neha Sharma, who had also appeared in Pre P.G. test, filed a writ petition, namely, W.P.No.3565/2010. In the said writ petition Indore Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 06.4.2010 directed that one seat in M.S. Gynaecology shall be kept vacant till next date of hearing. The respondent No.5 who had participated in Pre. P.G. counselling could not get the seat in M.S. Gynaecology, therefore, she opted for a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for short 'DGO') in M.P. quota and obtained admission. She had also appeared in All India Entrance Examination. In All India quota seats also she could secure a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology. Thus, the respondent No.5 obtained seat in DGO in M.P. quota as well as in All India quota. The respondent No.5 after getting admission in diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics submitted her resignation from the seat in DGO of M.P. quota. However, by suppressing the aforesaid fact she filed a writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 6092/2010 in which a relief was claimed that she be permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.

3. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma and respondent No.5 came up for hearing before Indore Bench of this Court on 20.5.2010. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma was dismissed whereas the writ petition preferred by respondent No.5, Dr. Ritu Agrawal, was disposed of with a direction to permit her to appear in second round of counselling for a seat in M.S. Gynaecology. It is averred that respondent No.5 was not entitled to appear in second round of counselling. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner of W.P.No.8337/2010 has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules which provides that if two candidates secure equal marks even in Part B of the question paper, the candidate older in age will be placed higher in inter se merit of such candidates. She also challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules which provides that any candidate who has been allotted a seat in a college/institution will not be permitted to participate in the subsequent counselling.

Rule 1.19 Merit List:-
(2) Inter se merit In case two or more candidates obtaining equal marks in the entrance examination, the merit will be decided as per procedure indicated below:-
(a) A Candidate who scores more marks in Part 'B" of the question paper will be kept higher in merit.
(b) Candidates scoring equal marks even in part "B" of the question paper, then candidate older in age will be placed higher in inter se merit of such candidates."

16. No doubt from a reading of the provisions contained in Regulation 9.1 of Regulations it would appear that it provides admission in the Post Graduate medical courses strictly on the basis of the academic merit. Regulation 9.2 of Regulations provides modes for determining the academic merit. It further provides that the university or the institution may adopt any one of the modes mentioned in Clause i to iv of the Regulation 9.2. Regulation 9.2.ii of Regulations provides that academic merit of candidates may be assessed by a centralized competitive test held at the national level. Thus, Pre. P.G. Test is held in accordance with the Regulation 9.2.ii of the Regulations. Since the candidates who appear in the Pre. P.G. Examination come from different universities and different backgrounds, therefore, the Common Entrance Test is held with the object to create a level playing field for the candidates to adjudge their inter se merit. A close scrutiny of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules reveals that in case two or more candidates obtain equal marks then the merit has to be decided firstly on the basis of marks secured by candidate in part "B" of the question paper i.e. the candidate who secured more marks in part 'B' of the question paper has to be kept higher in merit. However, if both the candidates secured equal marks even in part "B" of the question paper then the candidates older in age is placed higher in inter se merit. The age of candidate is prescribed as the last criteria for placement in merit, not the first criteria, as the first criteria is the marks obtained by a candidate in Part 'B' examination. From perusal of the rules framed by several institution/States which have been relied upon by the petitioners themselves we find that candidates have to be given preference on the basis of age if they secure equal marks. For instance, we may refer to Clause 12.2.C of the Rules framed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which provides that if candidates obtain equal marks in the examination, the candidate older in age would get preference. Similarly, the Rules framed by PGI Chandigarh annexed as Annexure-P-14 also contain similar provision. Same provision exists in the Rules framed by State of Karnataka as well as Banaras Hindu University. Therefore, it appears that in all the Entrance Examination Rules framed by various authorities, age has been made the basis for granting preference in case candidates secure equal marks. Therefore, the same appears to be a reasonable and acceptable criteria. That apart, we have no reason or justification to hold that the age which has been made one of the criteria where merit being equal could be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, it could be safely held to be valid and reasonable for determining the inter se merit where candidates secure equal marks. Thus, the challenge to the aforesaid rule is misconceived and cannot be sustained. The contention that the marks obtained in MBBS examination should have been made a criteria can also not be accepted as same would defeat the very object of holding the Common Entrance Test. Besides that, Regulation 9 of the Regulations prescribes four different modes or procedure for determining the academic merit. One of the mode or procedure to determine the academic merit is by holding Common Entrance Test. Therefore, where the Common Entrance Test is held for determining the academic merit, the marks obtained in different examinations of M.B.B.S. become irrelevant as merit of all the candidates, who appear in the examination, are adjudged by applying uniform criteria. It is matter of common knowledge that the standard of education varies from Institution to Institution, University to University and State to State. There may be a situation that both the candidates have passed the M.B.B.S. from the same college but it would be exception to the general rule and that cannot be a basis to hold the rule invalid.