Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 525 (ORI)

Surendra Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa

2006-07-14

P.K.MOHANTY, R.N.BISWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties in reducing the P.G. (Medical) seats from 76 to 58 and inserting clause 14.5.2 in the prospectus published for P.G. (Medical) Entrance Examination, Orissa 2005 (Annexure-1) as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, after successfully completing his M.B.B.S. Course and housemanship with a brilliant academic career he was appointed as an Asst. Surgeon and served in the rural areas. In response to an advertisement made in the first week of December 2004 inviting applications to appear in the Entrance Examination for selection of candidates for P.G. (Medical) Course 2005, in the Government College of Orissa, he deposited a sum of Rs.750/-, obtained an application form and after filling it up offered himself as a candidate for the same. On 6th February 2005 he faced the Entrance Examination and se¬cured 50th position in the merit list of the in-service candi¬dates. 3. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 50% of the total P.G. seats were surrendered to All India Quota. Before surrender, 141 seats were allocated in favour of the in-service candidates in the year 2003. After surrender the same were reduced to 75 in the year 2004 and 76 in the year 2005. Again as per clause 14.6 of the prospectus even though, 8 seats in the Paediatric discipline had been shown to be filled up subject to affiliation by the Medical Council of India and Utkal University, during counseling these 8 seats were not allowed to be filled up. As such, the total number of seats for in-service candidates was reduced to 58 without prior intimation. 4. Clause 15.5.2. of the prospectus 2005 (Annexure-1) stipulates that “Subject wise unfilled “All India Open General Seats”, if any, (as per information collected from the three Government Medical Colleges of Orissa, by the date of Counseling) will also be merged with the seats of General (Direct) Candidates”. According to the petitioner in view of this clause, the general category (in-service) candidates would suffer as the number of seats meant for them for ensuing P.G. (Medical) admis¬sion would be decreased and the seats for General Candidates (Direct) would be increased, as such it is a clear case of dis¬crimination among the direct general candidates and in-service general candidates. Hence the writ petition. 5. Hence the writ petition. 5. Opposite party Nos.1 to 4 in their counter affidavit contended that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.2.2005 in W.P.(C) No.8 of 2005, 50% of the total recognized/approved P.G. seats of the State had been sur¬rendered against All India Quota-2006 and the balance 50% i.e., 115 seats under Orissa State Quota-2006 have been divided among the in-service and direct categories candidates, hence the action taken by the Opposite Parties in this regard cannot be branded as arbitrary. Clause 14.5.2 has been inserted in the Prospectus (Annexure-1) stipulating that 50% of the total seats surrendered to All India Quota, if remains unfilled and surrendered back to the State would merge in the open direct general seats because those seats were surrendered to all India Quota to be filled up by direct candidates, so that there is no question of discrimina¬tion between the in-service and direct candidates. 6. It is the further case of the Opp.parties that Clause 14.5.2 of the Prospectus (Annexure-1) was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.5792 of 2005, 5793 of 2005 5794 of 2005 and 5795 of 2005, all of which were dismissed. Since the present writ petition filed by the petitioner stands on similar footing and is devoid of merit, it also deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the previous year, 8 seats pertaining to paediatric stream, shown in clause 14.6. of the prospectus, as subject to affiliation of Medical Council of India and Utkal University, were filled up at the risk of the candidates, but in the academic session 2006 those seats were left unfilled. Had the petitioner been given a chance, he would have taken admission against one of those seats at his own risk. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the Medical Council of India strictly disal¬lowed admission against any non-approved/non-recognised P.G. seats at the threat of de-recognition of the erring institution, the opp.parties were compelled not to fill up those 13 non-recognised/non-approved P.G. sets including 8 seats pertaining to paediatric discipline. So it cannot be said that there was dis¬crimination in not filling up those 13 seats. 8. Admittedly 8 seats of paediatric discipline and 5 other seats of other disciplines were non-recognized/non-approved seats. So it cannot be said that there was dis¬crimination in not filling up those 13 seats. 8. Admittedly 8 seats of paediatric discipline and 5 other seats of other disciplines were non-recognized/non-approved seats. Only because in the previous year those seats were filled up at the risk of the candidates the petitioner cannot lay and claim as of right over any of those seats in 2006 academic ses¬sion, particularly when the Medical Council of India threatened to de-recognise the institution which would allow the candidates to take admission against any such non-recognised/non-approved P.G. seat. The petitioner may take risk and get himself admitted against such a non-approved/non-recognised seat and suffer two years of his career in making futile exercise by prosecuting the course and sustaining financial loss as well, but he cannot take the risk of de-recognition of the institution exposing the fate of the other students who would take admission against the ap¬proved/recognized P.G. (Medical) seats to peril. So, in our view the opp.parties are in no way at fault in not allow to fill up the non-recognized/non-approved 13 Nos. of P.G. seats. 9. The next submission of learned counsel for the peti¬tioner is with regard to the validity of clause 15.5.2 of the prospectus (Annexure-1). According to him the said clause is wholly discriminatory inasmuch as there is no nexus between the basis of classification and the object cherished to be achieved and as such it is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution. Learned Additional Government Advocate repelled the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that in fact 50% of the total approved/recognised P.G. (Medical) seats were set apart for in-service candidates with a view to facili¬tate them in getting admission in P.G. course, lest since they are not in touch with study they may not compete with the direct Candidates who have passed M.B.B.S. fresh. So the 50% as seats surrendered to the All India quota on return to the State in case the seats remained un-filled cannot be claimed by the in-service candidates as of right, particularly when those seats were sur¬rendered to All India quota meant for direct candidates. 10. Admission to the P.G. course should be left to the expertise of academicians interested in quality of medical educa¬tion and the administrators who are conversant with various social and economical problems. 10. Admission to the P.G. course should be left to the expertise of academicians interested in quality of medical educa¬tion and the administrators who are conversant with various social and economical problems. The Court should not interfere in such matter unless there is arbitrariness. In the case at hand 50% of the total P.G. seats were kept apart for the in-service candidates with a view to facilitate them in taking admission to P.G. course. The 50% of the seats which were surrendered to All India quota meant for direct candidates if returned unfilled, is stipulated to be allotted to the direct candidates in clause 14.5.2 of the prospectus. In our view insertion of this clause in the prospectus cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution. 11. Furthermore, earlier clause 14.5.2 of the prospectus (Annexure-1) was challenged before this Court as arbitrary and illegal in W.P.(C) No.5792 of 2005, 5793 of 2005, 5794 of 2005 and 5795 of 2005, all of which were dismissed on 31.11.2005 on the ground that the same were rendered infructuous since admis¬sion had already been over and sessions commenced. Review peti¬tions filed against those orders were also dismissed. On that ground also the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit an as such the same stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.