Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2373 (RAJ)

Dr. Pramod Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2009-11-16

JAGDISH BHALLA, M.N.BHANDARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th January, 2007, whereby and where under, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. 2. The matter pertains to selection and admission to Post Graduate Course in dental surgery for the academic session 2006-2007. The appellant-petitioner applied for the PG Course, but he was not called for counselling and thus, the writ petition was filed. 3. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant-petitioner was allowed to appear in the PG Course. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the appellant-petitioner has already completed the PG course and the same has further been recognised by the Dental Council of India. It is further stated that even other two candidates, namely, Vijay Kumar Choudhary and Bahadur Singh Meena (respondents no. 6 and 7 respectively), who appeared in the PG course along with the appellant-petitioner, have also completed the PG Course and PG course of all the three candidates has been recognised by the Dental Council of India. 4. The aforesaid aspect has not been disputed by Mr. Praveen Baiwada and Mr. Manish Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 6 and 7. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not allowed to appear in the counselling only on the ground that he failed to secure minimum 50% qualifying marks, though there was no such criteria provided by Dental Council of India nor there was any such rule for appearance in the PG Course in Dentistry. Applying the criteria and guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India, the petitioner-appellant was deprived to appear in the counselling. Since interim order was passed by this Court, he appeared in the PG course and completed the same. The challenge has been made in regard to the application of criteria/guidelines issued by Medical Council of India to a course pertaining to PG Course in Dentistry. 6. Learned Addl. Advocate General fairly conceded that no circular or guideline was issued by the Dental Council of India to secure minimum 50% qualifying marks for admission in the PG Course in Dentistry. However, in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mukesh Pal Singh & Anr. 6. Learned Addl. Advocate General fairly conceded that no circular or guideline was issued by the Dental Council of India to secure minimum 50% qualifying marks for admission in the PG Course in Dentistry. However, in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mukesh Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 726) , entrance examination for PG course in Dentistry was conducted as per procedure provided in Ordinance 278-E of the Rajasthan University. 7. On a question being asked to the learned Addl. Advocate General as to whether the aforesaid provision provides for securing minimum 50% qualifying marks for admission to PG Course in Dentistry, he fairly conceded that no such criteria has been provided in the Ordinance 278-E. 8. In view of the above, it becomes clear that even if the direction in the case of Dr. Mukesh Pal Singh (supra) was to be carried out, the respondents were not authorised to provide minimum 50% qualifying marks for admission to the PG course in Dentistry till Dental Council issues such instruction and any instruction issued by Medical Council of India cannot be applied for P.G. Course in Dentistry. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted and otherwise also, not only the appellant-petitioner, but two other candidates (respondents no. 6 and 7) have also been given registration of PG Course in Dentistry and the course has been recognised by the Dental Council of India. 10. Thus, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions (a) So far as the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned, the same is set aside by maintaining the admission and registration of the appellant-petitioner for Post Graduate Course in Dentistry. (b) Admission and registration in PG Course of respondents no. 6 and 7 are also saved and the same would not be questioned as it has also been recognised by the Dental Council of India. Cost is made easy.Appeal allowed - Judgment of Single Judge set aside - Admission and Registration of petitioner alongwith that of respondents 6 and 7 saved. *******