Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 262 (PAT)

Prabhat Kumar Nayak v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-06

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner secured admission in 1997 to the M.B.B.S. course in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College, Jamshedpur. The institution in question was at the relevant time located in the State of unified Bihar and after re-organization of the State in the year 2000; the institution is now situated in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was a resident of the State of Bihar and was admitted to the M.B.B.S. course against the seats reserved for allocation to the wards of defence personnel. He passed the final year M.B.B.S. exam in the year 2002. A prospectus was issued on 23.12.2006 for admission to the Postgraduate course in the Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar (PGMAT 2007) on basis of a competitive examination to be conducted by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. Rule 2 sub-clauses (8) defines Bihar to mean as existing after the re-organization, as defined under Sec. 4 of the Bihar Re-organization Act. The clause dealing with qualification and eligibility for appearing at the P.G.M.A.T. 2007 stipulated that the candidates may have passed the M.B.B.S. from any medical college of the Bihar State included in the schedule of Medical Council of India. Thereafter, a corrigendum followed on 6.2.2007 modifying the conditions of eligibility. It qualified that such candidates who were permanent residents or domicile of Bihar and had been admitted on the basis of competitive examination conducted on behalf of the Government of Bihar and by C.B.S.E. (under all India quota) before bifurcation of Bihar in Medical Colleges situated in Jharkhand and had obtained the degree of M.B.B.S. were also eligible to appear in the P.G.M.A.T. examination. The examination was held on 18.3.2007. The petitioner was allotted roll no. 11824 as a B.C. (Backward Class) candidate. He was successful and was called for counselling, for which he appeared on 6.6.2007 and was granted provisional admission. Subsequently, he was denied admission and permission to attend course on the ground that he had not secured admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the State of Bihar through a competitive examination when he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2007, which was disposed off with certain directions on 12.6.2007. Subsequently, he was denied admission and permission to attend course on the ground that he had not secured admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the State of Bihar through a competitive examination when he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2007, which was disposed off with certain directions on 12.6.2007. When he had a grievance that the orders of the Court were not being complied with, he filed M.J.C. No. 1507 of 2007 when orders were appropriately passed dated 27.8.2007 by the Respondents in terms of the earlier order of the writ Court. This led to the dismissal of his contempt application. He now assails the order of rejection of his candidature dated 27.8.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was a domicile of Bihar. Once he got admission through the defence quota in the M.B.B.S. course, he merged into a common stream of students in the M.B.B.S. course. The Respondents subsequently have themselves clarified that a person who had joined a medical college in the erstwhile State of Bihar before re-organization shall be deemed to have passed from the State of Bihar for purposes of P.G.M.A.T. examination. The petitioner fulfills this qualification also. It was next urged that being satisfied with his eligibility the Respondents accepted his application for P.G.M.A.T. examination, allotted him a roll number, permitted him to appear and declared his results and allowed participation in the counseling. At the final stage, he was being debarred now by making a classification from the common stream of M.B.B.S. students with regard to those who may have obtained admission to the M.B.B.S. course on the competitive examination and those who may not have. He urged that this classification is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution, devoid of any rational with no objective to be achieved and, therefore, was unsustainable in law. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 376 (Shri Krishan V/s. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) to submit that once the candidate was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, the authorities cannot be permitted to withdraw the candidature of the applicant which has already worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which was required to be looked into initially. He has also relied upon the notification issued by the State of Jharkhand for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course which provides that a candidate, who was a resident of Jharkhand and has passed M.B.B.S. Course from Bihar, could also apply for admission. He emphasized that no such restriction/ classification has been made by the State of Jharkhand. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner was conscious of the condition in the Prospectus and the corrigendum, of his ineligibility for not having got admission in the M.B.B.S. course through the competitive examination. Nonetheless, he submitted his candidature and took a chance without challenging the said condition. He then appeared at the counselling and undertook to produce the certificate regarding his admission in the M.B.B.S. course through a competitive examination and only thereafter sought to challenge the condition in CWJC No. 7328 of 2007. This Court declined him relief and on 12.6.2007 only granted him liberty to produce the necessary certificate from the Principal of the College concerned that he had passed the M.B.B.S. course in the year 2002 whereafter the Respondents were liable to pass a reasoned order for not accepting such a certificate. The impugned order has then come to be passed. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the earlier order of the writ Court, the present writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had himself agreed to produce his certificate of eligibility in terms of the Prospectus and the corrigendum. That the counselling is already over in June. Whatever may be the reasons, no admission could now be granted mid-stream. 5. Learned Advocate General fairly stated and conceded before the Court that there was no rational basis for the classification with any objective to be achieved from one stream of those who had completed the M.B.B.S. course from undivided Bihar to create a distinction between those who had got admission to the M.B.B.S. course through a competitive examination and those who had not. 6. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the conditions imposed by the Respondents creating the classification were contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. Once candidates from different source were granted admission to M.B.B.S. course, they form one stream. At the end of the stream, they could not be bifurcated. 6. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the conditions imposed by the Respondents creating the classification were contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. Once candidates from different source were granted admission to M.B.B.S. course, they form one stream. At the end of the stream, they could not be bifurcated. Quite apparently, the classification is not based on any intelligible material or differentia of an objective to be achieved. It cannot be so. The fact that the petitioner may not have questioned the condition in the corrigendum and appeared at the examination and the counselling and has questioned the same subsequently is of hardly any consequence in view of the action admitted to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The question of waiver of any fundamental rights does not arise. 7. This Court finds no substance in the submission of the Respondents that in view of the earlier order of the writ Court, the present writ petition was not maintainable. It is to be seen from the order itself that the Court granted the petitioner liberty to produce his document before the authorities whereafer they were to pass a fresh reasoned order, which is now assailed in the present writ application. The Court, therefore, rejects that part of the argument of the Respondents that the petitioner having competed and failed to qualify under the corrigendum eannot question the same. 8. In view of the fairness on the part of the learned Advocate General with regard to indefensibility of the classification made by the eorrigendum, this aspect requires no further discussion. 9. The petitioner came to this Court with alertness in time in C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2007. He pursued the matter diligently in contempt application also leading to the institution of the present writ application. The impugned order of rejection dated 27.8.2007 has ultimately been found to be in the teeth of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. This Court is satisfied that only appropriate direction now required is to direct the Respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in D.C.P. diploma course in terms of the counseling done on 6.6.2007 when he was granted provisional admission. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ application stands allowed.