Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 129 (CHH)

HARSHIT MISHRA v. STATE OF C. G.

2004-07-02

A.S.V.MOORTHY, L.C.BHADOO

body2004
ORDER L. C. Bhadoo, J. 1. These petitions remind us of the observations made by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Singh and others and also in the matter of Convenor MBBS/BDS Selection Board Vs. Chandan Mishra, that when the time of admission to medical courses arrives, immediately comes to mind Shakespeare s Othello, where it was written: "Chaos is come again". The inevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires instead of virus. Again on account of the insensitivity of the authorities administering medical admission in the State have again forced the students to file these writ petitions. In the year 2002 the Rules were framed for conducting the Pre-P.G. Examination which were challenged in the Writ Petition No. 1188/2002 and the same were quashed and a direction was given by the Court to the Government to frame the rules. Again the Pre-P.G. Rules of 2004 were framed. The same are again under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. This order shall govern the disposal of M.(W.) P. No. 1120/2004 filed in the Writ petition No. 1248 of 2004 (Harshit Mishra & Others Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Others), whereby the petitioners have prayed to stay the effect and operation of the impugned action taken by the respondents 1 and 2 and to direct the respondents not to hold Pre. P.G. Entrance Examination for three Sessions i.e. for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 in one entrance test, M.(W.) P. No. 1328/2004 has been filed on behalf of the State of Chattisgarh for vacating the ad-interim order dated 27-5-2004 passed in this writ petition whereby the Court permitted the State to conduct counseling pursuant to the result but prahibited declaration of the result of counseling till the next date of hearing i.e. 14-6-2004, also M.(W.)P. No. 1335/2004 filed by the interveners to vacate the ad-interim stay order granted by this Court dated 27-5-2004, also M.(W.)P. No. 1495/2004 filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1678/2004 (Dr. Omprakash A4akhija & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) to restrain the State from declaring the result of counseling of 2004 seats till the final disposal of this writ petition, also M.(W.)P. No. 1186/2004 filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1326/2004 (Siddharth Verma & Others Vs. Omprakash A4akhija & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) to restrain the State from declaring the result of counseling of 2004 seats till the final disposal of this writ petition, also M.(W.)P. No. 1186/2004 filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1326/2004 (Siddharth Verma & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) whereby the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to give precedence to the petitioners in the Pre-P.G. Course since they have altered their position to their detriment and also acquired a right to get seats in the P.G. course of Medical Science and also M.(W.) P. No. 1470/2004 filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1648/2004 (Dr. Ritesh Kansal & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) in which the similar ad-interim direction is sought that the respondent State authorities may be directed to give precedence to the petitioners in the Pre-P.G. course since they have altered their position to their detriment and also acquired a right to get seats in the P.G. course of Medical Science. 3. The writ petition No. 1248/2004 has been filed by Harsh it Mishra and others challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned action of respondents 1 and 2 whereby the respondents have conducted the Pre-P.G. examination for three sessions at a time i.e. years 2004, 2005 and 2006. The petitioners herein after passing their M.B.B.S examination in September 2003 have started their compulsory ratatory internship from 8th September 2003 and they shall be completing their internship on completion of one year there from i.e. in the month of September 2004. 4. The case of the petitioners is that since they will be completing their internship on September 2004, if the examination for the Session 20052006 is permitted to be conducted as per the scheme of the respondents, then the petitioners as per the scheme will be entitled to appear in the Pre-P.G. test for the session 2007 to be held in the year 2005. The further case of the petitioners is that on account of holding the combined entrance examination for three years the candidates who will be appearing in this examination will have a fair chance of their selection as on account of the availability of the 3 years seats. The further case of the petitioners is that on account of holding the combined entrance examination for three years the candidates who will be appearing in this examination will have a fair chance of their selection as on account of the availability of the 3 years seats. Their further case is that the level of competition looking to the number of students competing in proportion to the number of seats available will be less making entrance examination easier whereas, from the next year onwards more number of students will be competing for less number of seats, thereby the petitioner's chances of getting admission in the P.G. Course will be reduced. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative and as such, cannot hold Pre-P.G. examination for 3 sessions by one examination. It is further mentioned that as per the circular issued by the , Medical Council of India dated 31st October 2003 the entrance test can be held for the concerned one year, as has been mentioned in the circular that the examination is to be held for the concerned year. 5. Whereas, the case of the petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos. 1648/ 2004 and 132612004 is that as per Rule 6.3 framed under the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mahavidyalayan Ke Snatkottar Pathyakramon Mein Pravesh Adhiniyam 2002, the eligibility criteria for appearing in the Pre-P.G. Examination was fixed that only those candidates who have completed two years service in a Rural Primary Health Centre on or before 30th April of the Pre-P.G. examination will be entitled to appear in the examination. In view of that provision, the petitioners had already joined the government service in the rural areas and as per the Government's promise they have completed two years of service, but all of a sudden, vide Rule-7 of the Pre-P.G. Examination 2004, it has been prescribed that "in the year 2004 the Pre-P.G. Examination shall be held for admissions for the session beginning in the year 2004, the sessions beginning in the year 2005, and the sessions beginning in the year 2006." As per the amended rule even the fresh candidates, who have just passed the M.B.B.S. course, have been allowed to sit in the said examination to compete along with the petitioners and the State Government has not made any special provision of reservation for the persons like the petitioners who have served rural areas relying on the earlier rules i.e. Pre P.G. rules 2002 which provides that only those persons who have served rural areas for two years will be entitled to appear in Pre-P.G. Examination. The State authorities ought to have given precedence to the petitioners or similarly situated persons by giving a percentage of seats. The petitioners relying on earlier rules altered their position to their detriment and by not fixing a percentage in the seats, the State Government has marred the prospects of the petitioners of getting admission in PG course after appearing in Pre PG Examination 2004. The petitioners have to compete with the freshers, who have just completed their graduation and obtained the. degree of M.B.B.S. whereas, the petitioners after serving the rural areas are not in touch with academic professional study and cannot be expected to keep in their mind like freshers all the course of the M.B.B.S.. The petitioners submitted that for other persons who are appearing in an entrance test have to be provided a common platform and equal opportunity to compete. 6. The respondents authorities are estopped from changing the rules in view of the principles of law known as doctrine of promissory estoppels and only for the period of 2004-2005 the discriminatory treatment has been given to the candidates like the petitioners and thus the fundamental and constitutional rights granted to the petitioners have been violated by the said rules. Therefore, the State authorities ought to have given precedence to the petitioners over other candidates for admission in PG courses. 7. Therefore, the State authorities ought to have given precedence to the petitioners over other candidates for admission in PG courses. 7. As far as the writ petition No. 1678/2004 (Dr. Omprakash Makhija & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) is concerned the case of the petitioners is that they appeared in the Pre-PG Examination held for three sessions i.e. 2004, 2005 and 2006 and the petitioners were selected in the said examination held by the respondents and thereafter counseling was organized by the respondents. The petitioners are meritorious students and the seats of 2004 sessions was available to them for their option, but since the counseling was also done for the years 2005 and 2006sessions and better option better branch of the medical courses were available to them naturally and obviously, they gone for 2005 & 2006 seats leaving the seats available to them for the session 2004. On account of filing of the writ petitions by the aggrieved students against conducting of examination for three sessions i.e. 2004, 2005 and 2006, the petitioners developed a grave apprehension that any imminent danger of injustice may arise, on respondent/State being permitted to give admission to the students only for the sessions 2004 and examination for 2005 and 2006 being declared illegal. Therefore, it has been prayed that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to hold counseling 'afresh for the session 2004 for PG seats in pursuance of the Pre-PG Examination held on 2nd May 2004. Therefore, in such view of the matter, the following questions fall for our consideration. (i) Whether the action of respondents 1 and 2 holding combined Pre-PG Examination for sessions 2004, 2005 and 2006 is illegal and discriminatory having without any reasonable nexus to the purpose to be achieved. (ii) In case the Court reaches to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 ought to have conducted the examination only for session 2004, then whether a direction can be given to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a fresh counseling only for the session 2004 and prepare a fresh list for the said period; (iii) Whether the candidates who have already completed two years of rural service in pursuance of the 2002 rules are entitled for separate reservation or in the alternative whether they are entitled for the weightage for their two years rural service. 8. 8. We are conscious of the legal position that at the stage of deciding the application for ad-interim stay the Court is required to decide on the points of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. But, looking to the points involved in these matters, while dealing with the above points we have to assign reasons for granting or rejecting the stay applications without which the order may not be termed as reasoned order after considering the points in the matters. -Therefore, looking to the points involved in the matters, we are passing the following reasoned order. 9. In order to appreciate the cases at hand in its proper perspective, it is necessary to consider the background and the factual backdrop of the cases. The State of Chhattisgarh which consists of 16 districts and out of 16 districts. 8 Districts are predominantly habited by tribal, which covers almost two third territory of the State of Chhattisgarh and most of the areas of these 8 districts are covered by forest and not approachable and accessible during the rainy season and in other seasons it is very difficult for patients to come for treatment in the township and even doctors are not avoilable to be posted in these rural oreas of Chhattisgarh as they are not willing to serve in the rural area. Out of 89 Primary Health Centre, 67 fall in Rural area and 512 Sectors Primary Health Centres are also there and out of total 724 hospitals 145 are situated in urban areas and 579 are in rural areas. Even not a single doctor could be appointed in 91 hospitals since their inception they rem aped hospitals without doctors. So, in order to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the State as stipulated in Article 47 of the Constitution to provide medical facilities to the citizens. The students who pass their degree course from the Govt. Funded Medical Colleges have their social obligation to serve the State especially in those areas in which there is no medical facility since the time immemorial, therefore, it is said that in this background the State Government took policy decision in order to fulfill their constitutional obligation by prescribing this eligibility criteria for Pre- PG examination. The above figures and object have been mentioned in the earlier litigation on the same subject in L.P.A. No. 2/2003. 10. The above figures and object have been mentioned in the earlier litigation on the same subject in L.P.A. No. 2/2003. 10. For becoming eligible to oppear in the Pre-P.G. Examination the students were required to undergo two years service in a Rural Primary Health Centre under the State Government on or before 30th April of the Pre-PG Examination. The rules of Pre-PG 2002 came to be challenged by the freshers M.B.B.S condidates in the Writ Petition No. 1188/2002 and the learned Single Judge finally allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 10th December 2002 and held that Rule 6.3 of the Pre-PG Rules 2002 which lays down the condition of two years of rural service as it existed cannot be sustained on the ground that it amounts to 100% reservation for in-service candidates leaving no single seat for the freshers. However, it was further held that it will be open to the Government to make a provision fixing a percentage of seats for in-service candidates and for freshers i.e. institutional candidates. Against this order, the State of Chhattisgarh filed L.P.A bearing No. 2/2003 which is still pending for decision.- However during the pendency of that L.P.A. this Court vide order dated 24th February 2003 considered the larger public interest and allowed the State to give admission to those candidates who appeared in the Pre-PG examination on the basis of their two years rural service on the ground that no time was left for fixing the percentage for the freshers and to conduct examination. However, it was made clear that this arrangement is made only for the session 2002-2003. Against this order, the freshers filed S.L.P before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed by the Apex Court. 11. However, the State Government in compliance of the afore said judgment instead of fixing the separate quota for those candidates who have served two years in the rural areas and separate quota for the freshers framed new scheme for Pre-PG Examination 2004 Rule 7 which relates to the Pre-PG Examination reads as under: "7.1. In the year 2004 the Pre- PG Examination shall be held for admissions for the session beginning in the year 2004, the sessions beginning in the year 2005 and the session beginning in the year 2006. 7.2. In the year 2004 the Pre- PG Examination shall be held for admissions for the session beginning in the year 2004, the sessions beginning in the year 2005 and the session beginning in the year 2006. 7.2. From the year 2005 Pre-PG Examination shall be held every year for admission in the session beginning 2 years after the year of Pre-PG examination, i.e. the Pre-PG Examination held in year 2005 will be for admissions to the session beginning in the year 2007. 7.3. Pre-PG Examination shall be conducted by the Examiner appointed by the State Government. 7.4. The Pre-PG Examination shall be of the standard of MBBS examination and shall cover all subjects of MBBS course and the Rule 11 deals with the admissions which reads thus : 11.1. For the Pre- PG examination held in the year 2004, depending on the choice made by the candidate at the time of counseling one of the following will be allowed: 11.1.1. If the candidate chooses a subject and course in the session starting in the year 2004, he will be offered admission immediately on the following conditions : 11.1.1.1. If the candidate has already completed 2 years rural service in Chhattisgarh in proof of which he/she has submitted a certificate from Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh he/ she will be given admission immediately. 11.1.1.2. If the candidate has completed service of 1 year in Chhattisgarh in proof of which he/she has submitted a certificate from Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh he/she shall be asked to furnish a bond of Rs. 75,000/- for rural service of one year. Only after furnishing such a bond admission will be given to the candidate. 11.1.1.3. If the candidate has not completed rural service of 1 year he/she shall be asked to furnish a bond of Rs. 75,000/- for rural service of two years. Only after furnishing such a bond admission will be given to the candidate. 11.1.1.4. If the candidate chooses a subject and course in the session starting in the year 2005, he will be offered admission in the• session starting in the year 2005 on the following conditions. 11.1.1.5. If the candidate has already completed 2 years rural service in Chhattisgarh in proof of which he/she has submitted a certificate from Director Health Services he/she will be offered a choice of serving in a rural PHC for 1 year. 11.1.1.5. If the candidate has already completed 2 years rural service in Chhattisgarh in proof of which he/she has submitted a certificate from Director Health Services he/she will be offered a choice of serving in a rural PHC for 1 year. If he/she chooses to serve in a rural PHC for one year he/she will be offered the job for 1 year at the place he/she chooses at the time of counseling, and will be given admission in the subject and course on his/her choice at the beginning of the session of the year 2005. If he/she chooses not to serve in rural area, he/she will be asked to return at the time of the start of the session of the year 2005, and will be given admission in the subject and course of his/her choice at that time. If the candidate has not served for 2 years, then he will be required to serve in the rural areas for one year before the session and one year after the completion of the post graduation course. 11.1.1.6. Similarly, if the candidate is selected in the session 2006 and he has not served in the rural areas, then first he will have to serve for two years in the rural areas, then he will be given admission in 2006 session and if he has already served for one year, then he has to serve for one year before he is admitted to 2006 session. If he has already served for two years, then he will be given admission in 2006 session. The further scheme of the admission has been given in detail in rule 11.1.1.1 to 11.1.1.11, 11.2. to 11.2-.3., 11.3 and 11.4 to 11.4.2. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. Now, coming to the point No.1, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1248/2004, which has been filed by the fresh candidates, argued that as per the circular of the Medical Council of India issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Medical Council of India Vs. Now, coming to the point No.1, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1248/2004, which has been filed by the fresh candidates, argued that as per the circular of the Medical Council of India issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & Other, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have conducted the examination only for the session 2004 and the circular envisages that the results of examination conducted by all the examinee authorities concerned shall be declared on or before 28th February of the concerned year and the admission including counseling thereof will be completed on or before 1st May of the concerned year and start teaching on 2nd May of the concerned year. Therefore, the Medical Council India has laid much emphasis on the word "concerned year". Meaning thereby that examination and counseling should have been conducted for the seats of that particular year and not for 3 sessions. By conducting such examination for 3 sessions, the petitioners who are still pursuing their compulsory rotatory internship which will be completing on 8th September 2004 and thereafter they will become entitled to appear in the examination of 2005 only were not able to appear in this examination and by conducting examination for 3 sessions the level of competition and the number of students competing in proportion to the number of seats available will be less making entrance test easier whereas from the next year onwards more number of students will be competing for less number of seats. Therefore, this examination is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. Shri Ranbir Singh, learned counsel for Medical Council of India, argued that in the Medical Council Regulations 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India there is no provision for conducting the examination for 3 sessions in one go whereas, Mr. 14. Shri Ranbir Singh, learned counsel for Medical Council of India, argued that in the Medical Council Regulations 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India there is no provision for conducting the examination for 3 sessions in one go whereas, Mr. P. Diwakar, learned counsel for the interveners, and Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General for the State argued that earlier rules 2002 framed by the State Government were struck down by the learned Single Judge and in order to achieve the objective of the State Government that candidates who want to seek admission in the Pre-PG course should go for the rural service Rule- 7 and 11 of Rules 2004 have been incorporated to ensure that the candidates who have already completed two years rural service shall be given admission immediately in 2004 if they are in the merit list. If the candidates who have not served in the rural areas, then they will be required to furnish a bond to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- for serving in the rural areas after the completion of their P.G. course. Similarly, if the candidates who are seeking admission for the session 2005 and have not served in the rural areas, then they have to serve one year before the admission and one year after the completion of their P.G. course. Similarly, if the candidates who are seeking admission for the session 2006, they will be required to serve two years before the commencement of the session 2006 and thereby the condition of the rural service of two years will be satisfied. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the weightage for rural service for seeking admission in the P.G. Course is concerned, that has been held constitutional by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court and the scheme is operating in all those States where the doctors are not readily available for rural service. Even this condition was held intravires to the Constitution by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1188/2002. As per the rules 7 and 11 of the Rules 2004, the scheme has been introduced in order to achieve the objective that the candidate must go for rural service of two years as far as possible before admission of P.G. Course. Even this condition was held intravires to the Constitution by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1188/2002. As per the rules 7 and 11 of the Rules 2004, the scheme has been introduced in order to achieve the objective that the candidate must go for rural service of two years as far as possible before admission of P.G. Course. The combined examination for 3 sessions has been held in order to ensure that two years rural service is rendered by the candidate seeking admission in the Pre-PG Examination. If the session chosen by them will commence before the completion of their two years rural service, then they will be required to undergo rural service after completion of their P.G. course and for that purpose they are also required to furnish a bond to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. For example, if a fresh candidate has been selected for the session 2004, then he will be required to serve two years of rural service after completion of P.G. course and if a candidate has chosen session 2005 and he has not served in the rural areas, then for one year he will serve before the commencement of the session and one year after the completion of the P.G. course. Similarly, if the candidate has not served in the rural areas and seeking admission for the session 2006, then he will be required to serve in the rural areas for two years before commencement of the session and thereby per force the candidate will be required to serve in the rural areas for one year and two year as the case may be, before the commencement of the course. If the examination is conducted for one year and the candidate has not undergone rural service and furnishes a bond to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- in our considered opinion in most of the cases the candidate will pay Rs. 75,000/- and thereby they will be able to get them absolved from the responsibility of serving in the rural areas. Even otherwise, Rule 7 and 11 gives opportunity to the freshers as well as the candidates who have already served two years in the rural areas to appear in the Pre-P.G. examination. 75,000/- and thereby they will be able to get them absolved from the responsibility of serving in the rural areas. Even otherwise, Rule 7 and 11 gives opportunity to the freshers as well as the candidates who have already served two years in the rural areas to appear in the Pre-P.G. examination. By these rules, the freshers can appear in the Pre-P.G. examination and they can serve the State in the rural areas either before the actual commencement of their session or after completion of the P.G. Course as envisaged in the above rules. Therefore, challenge to these rules by the freshers is misconcerved. Moreover, it is within the competence and domain of the State Government to bring legislation and frame rules. The only requirement of the law is that the same should not be arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. They must be framed with a purpose to achieve, as has been mentioned above in the present case. The State Government has introduced the above rules with a specific purpose to ensure that the students who want to seek admission in the P.G. course must serve the State in the rural areas as envisaged in the rules. It is not out of place to mention here and it is known fact that the State spends on every M.B.B.S. student approximately more than Rs. 4 lakhs during his M.B.B.S. course out of the public money. Therefore, in turn, it is the duty to every M.B.B.S. student to serve the public purpose as has been mentioned in para 9 of this order that 2/3rd area of the State is inhabited by the tribal persons and in the tribal areas even not a single doctor could be appointed in the 91 hospitals since their inception. Therefore, for the sake of repetition we must say that there is a laudable purpose behind these rules. 16. Therefore, for the sake of repetition we must say that there is a laudable purpose behind these rules. 16. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is a laudable purpose sought to be achieved behind the above schemes and by introducing the schemes there is genuine, relevant and reasonable cause and purpose, which has, sufficient nexus with the larger goal and public interest to be achieved by the State by forcing the freshets to go for per force, rural service before start in,& their education in 2005-2006 and similar will be the position when the examination for the session 2007 will be conducted in 2005. If any candidate has not served two years of rural service, then he will be required to go for two years rural service before the session is commenced. Therefore, it cannot be said that this scheme is arbitrary or discriminatory in any way. 17. As far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, that by conducting combined examination for 3 sessions more seats will be available to the candidates appearing in the Pre-P.G. examination this year and the level of competition will be easier on account of the availability of more seats whereas, in future on account of availability of less number of seats, the competition will be tough. We do not find any substance in this argument and it cannot be made ground for challenging the scheme, which has been framed by the State Government to achieve the laudable purpose and large goal of public interest to ensure that the students go for rural service before they start their education. Moreover, these rules have been framed to overcome the difficulties and to frame the scheme for Pre-P.G. Examination in pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No. 1188/2002 by this Court and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if only during this one year some more seats are available to the candidates and less number of seats will be available in the futures examination that cannot be considered as discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the petitioners in W.P. No. 1248/2004 have no prima facie case nor balance of convenience is lies in their favour and no irreparable loss will be caused to them, rather if the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct the examination only for session 2004 and not for other years, then the whole purpose of forcing the doctors to go for rural service is likely to be affected. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of rejecting the stay applications. 18. In view of the finding of the point No.1, we are of the opinion that the scheme framed by the respondents 1 and 2 under the Rule 7 and 11 of the Rules 2004 is legal and not violative, therefore, prima facie case is not in favour of the petitioners in the W.P. No. 1678/2004 and therefore, they are not entitled for interim stay. 19. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition Nos. 1648/2004 and 1326/2004, argued that the Government of Chhattisgarh framed rules Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mahavidyalayon ke Snatkottar Pathyakramon Mein Pravesh Adhiniyam 2002, as per the provision contained in rule 6.3 of the said rule, the candidates who were desirous to appear in the Pre-P.G. Examination, were required to go for two years rural service and in view of the mandatory provision, the petitioners have already, completed their two years rural service, respondents, all of a sudden, changed the scheme and there by the petitioners have been forced to compete with the freshers and the benefit which was earned by them, in view of the rules 2002, has been eliminated by respondents 1 and 2 by framing Rules 2004 without any valid reasons and in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the W.P. No. 1188/200, respondents 1 and 2 ought to have reserved certain seats for the petitioners who have already completed two years service. He also submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts reservation up to 50% is permissible in favour of in-service candidates. He also submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts reservation up to 50% is permissible in favour of in-service candidates. Therefore, in pursuance 'of the order of she learned single Judge passed in W.P. No. 1188/2002, respondents 1 and 2 ought to have reserved the seats for the petitioners or at least the state authorities ought to have given precedence to the petitioners over the other fresh candidates for admission in P.G. course and in view of the Rules 2002 respondents are now estopped by the principle of promissory estoppels to change the position of the petitioners by framing rules 2004 totally contrary to 2002 rules and forcing them to compete with the freshers without giving any weightage to them for their rural service. Bonafidely and faithfully relying on the Rules 2002 they had already served two years in rural areas. He is also explained that when the rules of 2002 were introduced by the respondents 1 and 2 and in complance of that the petitioners had already undergone two years of rural service then as per their legitimate expectation the respondents while framing the rules 2004 ought to have either• reserved the seats for them or they ought to have given some precedence or weightage to the petitioners over the freshers. He further argued that as per the judgment of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Snehalata Patnaik and others Vs. State of Orissa and others3 and the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others 4, it has been held that for rural service weightage up to 5% can be given to the candidates. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the interveners Shri P. Diwakar argued that the petitioners are not entitled for any precedence over the freshers. He further argued that even otherwise the sufficient number of in-service candidates have already secured position in the marit list Learned Advocate General also argued that the Rules 2002 have already been struck down by the Court, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to take any benefit of those rules and the principle of promissory estoppels and the legitimate expectation is also not available to the petitioners. 21. 21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as also to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1188/2002, the scheme of the Rules 2002 and also the scheme of Rules 2004. A perusal of Rules 2002 and 2004 reveals that the purpose and the object of the State Government behind introducing these rules was to discharge the obligation' of the State as envisaged under Article 47- of the Constitution of India. The respondent/ State was concerned about the health of the general public of the tribal area, therefore, they first introduced the Rule 2002 and introduced the scheme that only those candidates who have completed two years of rural service will be entitled to appear in the Pre-PG examination which was challenged and the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 10-12-2002 held that reservation in favour of the candidates who have already served two years rural service is constitutional, but the Court reached the conclusion that as the scheme amounts to 100% reservation in favour of the in-service candidates which is not permissible constitutionally, therefore, to that extent the Court held that the rules are arbitrary and directed the State Government to fix reasonable percentage of reservation for in service candidates and to leave' remaining seats for freshers. Instead of making any reservation in favour of the in-service candidates the Government issued notification drafting Rules 2004 in which also the main object is to ensure that the candidates who want to take up the P.G. education should go for rural service in a slightly changed manner and the laudable purpose is that the candidates who want admission in P.G. course have to undergo the rural service other before or after passing the P.G. examination and the petitioners have already undergone two years of rural service as per the rules 2002. Since no specific reservation has been made in their favour, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the above two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, they are definitely entitled for certain weightage maximum up to of 5% However, the percentage is to be fixed by the State Government because the petitioners have already undergone rural service as per the Government's scheme and the Government changed that scheme all of a sudden affecting the rights of the petitioners. Therefore as per the principle of promissory estoppels as well as legitimate expectation the Government ought to have considered their case and must have either reserved the seats in their favour or should have given weightage maximum up to 5%. 22. Therefore in view of the above, there is strong and prima facie cass in favour of the petitioners, balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if the same is not allowed in favour of the petitioners, then that will cause irreparable loss to them. 23. While passing this order in favour of the petitioners in the writ petition Nos. 1326/2004 and 1648/2004, we are conscious of the fact that this order is in the form of mandatory directions and to a great extent passing this order amounts to allowing of the writ petitions. Looking to the peculior facts and circumstances of the case if this kind of order is not passed in favour of the petitioners, then their whole case will become infructuous and they will not be entitled for any relief even if they succeed at the time of the final disposal. Notices in the writ petitions were issued on 10-5-2004 and on 27-5-2004 the learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 2 sought three weeks time to file return and till the date of arguments i.e. 25-6-2004 even after the lapse of four weeks time no return was filed by the State. On the other hand they were regularly putting pressure on the Court that in view of the urgency the matter may be taken up for vacating the stay. We fail to understand that on the one hand the state Govt. has not filed the return even after the lapse of four weeks time, even then they were insisting for hearing on the 3tay applications. Therefore, under these circumstances looking to the facts in circumstances of the case, we have to pass, this order in the mandatory form. 24. We fail to understand that on the one hand the state Govt. has not filed the return even after the lapse of four weeks time, even then they were insisting for hearing on the 3tay applications. Therefore, under these circumstances looking to the facts in circumstances of the case, we have to pass, this order in the mandatory form. 24. Now, coming to the argument of the learned counsel for the Medical Council of India that the academic session as per the circular issued by the Medical Council of India in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latter of Madhu Singh and other (Supra) the session Was to start latest by 1st June and since that line has already been crossed, so now no admission can be given to the candidates and the midterm admissions are not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Singh & Others (Supra), but in view of the peculior facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case of individual or one or two candidates granting mid-term admissions, as this case relates to the whole batch of the candidates seeking admission for the session 2004 and so far only one month has passed, we are of the considered view that if the admission is not allowed, then whole year will go waste and staff of Medical Colleges, its infrastructure and equipments will remain unutilized and this situation is not going to serve the purpose of anyone and this will be wastage of public money. In this connection, it will be relevant to reproduce the para-21 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Harish Verma and others Vs. Ajay Shrivastava & another : "As a consequence, the admissions given to such of the in-service candiates who have secured marks less than the minimum prescribed by Regulation 9 framed by the Medical Council of India are struck down and set aside. The counseling shall have to be done afresh to the extent necessary. We are conscious of the fact that there would be some delay in commencement of post-graduation studies and to some extent the 2002 and 2003 batches would overlap. However, that is a situation which cannot be avoided. The counseling shall have to be done afresh to the extent necessary. We are conscious of the fact that there would be some delay in commencement of post-graduation studies and to some extent the 2002 and 2003 batches would overlap. However, that is a situation which cannot be avoided. It is an inevitable consequence for which the successful condidates for the year 2002 and 2003 i.e. those who will be held entitled to admission in post graduation courses of studies consequent upon this judgment, cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. It will be for the State of Rajasthan. If necessary, then in consultation with the Medical Council of India, to sort out_ the difficulties and to run the regular courses of the studies." Therefore, in view of the peculiar situation in this matter we are of the considered view that the State of Chhattisgarh in consultation with the Medical Council of India should do needful to overcome this difficulty. 25. In the result, (i) We direct the respondents -1 to 3 to give weightage maximum up to 5% to those candidates who have already completed two years of rual service before appearing in the Pre-P.G. Examination 2004. After giving the weightage to conduct counseling afresh after seeking fresh choice of the condidates regarding the session and the subject. (ii) However, it is made clear that the Government should fix the reasonable percentage as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Stats of M.P and others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others4 (Supra) at page 106, in the last line of para-33, we hasten to add that, that "while recasting and reframing the rules the State Government shall take care to see that the weightage assigned is reasonable and is worked out on a rational basis. " (iii) As the Session has already commenced from 1st May 2004 and the delay of every day is fatal therefore, we further direct the respondents 1 to 3 that after fixing the percentage of waightage at the earliest, they should start the counseling by 9th July 2004 so that everything is over by 10th July 2004 and session starts from 12th July 2004. (iv) Accordingly, the M(W.)P. No. 1120/2004 moved by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1248/2004 and M.(W.)P. No. 1495/2004 moved by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1678/2004 are liable to be rejected and the same are rejected. The applications M.(W.)P. Nos. 1328/2004, 1186/2004, 1470/2004 and 1335/ 2004 stand disposed of in terms of the above order.