JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, these writ petitions have been heard finally that at the stage when the matters are listed on application for vacation of interim order. By way of these writ petitions, the petitions have challenged clause 2(II)(3) of the Instruction Booklet for the Pre-PG Medical Examination-2009. The further prayer made is that the petitioners may be treated eligible and be considered in the category of in-service candidate by counting their rural service upto 31st May, 2009. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners having passed MBBS Examination were thereafter selected on the post of Medical Officer by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Pursuant to their Selection, Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued appointment orders and accordingly, the petitioners joined their services and are continuously performing their duties in rural areas. The Rajasthan University of Health Science invited application of Pre-PG Examination-2009 for admission in MD/MS/Diploma Courses and issued instruction booklet. For admission in postgraduate courses, seats were divided between in-service candidates and for fresh candidates, apart from reservation of seats for the reserved castes. The seats for MD/MS/Diploma Courses are to be filled by way of all India competitive examination to the extent of 50% of the seats and remaining seats are to be filled by way of Pre-PG medical examination to be conducted by the respondent University. The controversy raised in the present matter is regarding the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondent-University, more specifically clause 2(II)(3) for in-service category candidates, wherein it has been provided that to be treated an in-service candidate, the candidate must have completed at least three years of service in Rural areas of the State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of rural areas of Desert/Hilly or scheduled area of the State on 30th April, 2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that due to delay in issuance of the appointment orders, their 3 years' rural service would be completed after 30th April, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to delay in issuance of the appointment order, their 3 years' rural service would be completed after 30th April, 2009 and therefore, the aforesaid condition has been challenged. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to delay in issuance of the appointment order, their 3 years' rural service would be completed after 30th April, 2009 and therefore, the aforesaid condition has been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners having been appointed on regular basis pursuant to the selection conducted by the RPSC and would be completing 3 years' rural service on or before 31st May, 2009, should have been treated eligible to appear in the Pre-PG Medical Examination, 2009 in the category of in-service candidates. The claim aforesaid has been made based on the past practice as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in, (2005) 2 SCC 65 . In the previous years also, 30th April was fixed as cut off date for judging the eligibility of in-service candidates, but then with the intervention of the State Government, the cut off date was changed to 31st May of the years of examination in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents should not deviate from their past practice moreso when the deviation goes contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and which otherwise remains discriminatory in nature as all the candidates in the previous years were treated as eligible even if they had completed their 3 years' rural service after 30th April of the year of examination. 4. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no justification to fix the cut off date as 30th April to judge the eligibility of in-service candidates. It is stated that as per the calendar now given by the Medical Council of India pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra) 31st May is the last date for admission, thus, for the purpose of judging eligibility of the in-service candidates, the aforesaid date should have been taken as the cut off date and not any date prior to it. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cut off date of 30th April has been fixed arbitrarily and which is otherwise contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra). 5. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while the ad hoc or contract employees have been treated eligible in the category of in-service candidates, the petitioner are being denied the same benefit despite of their selection through RPSC, thus, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that while issuing instructions, the eligibility criteria for different category of candidates was considered and for in-service candidate as well as for fresh candidates, cut off date for judging their eligibility is fixed as 30th April, 2009, thus, it is not only for in service candidates, but even for fresh candidates, same cut off date has been fixed, thus, there exists no discrimination in the action of the respondents. It is stated that as per the calendar given pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in he case of Mridul Dhar (supra), the last date of joining of the allotted college and course is 1st May of the year, thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid date, a date prior was determined as the cut off date for adjudging the eligibility because a candidate has to be eligible for the course before his joining. Justifying the cut off date to be 30th April, it is urged that not only there is a reasonableness therein, but it is in consonance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further urged that in past also. University had decided 30th April to be the cut off date, but the State Government altered the same, though such alteration was shown to be in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, but it was in fact in violation of the judgment, thus, realising that situation, no alteration in the cut off date has been made for this year and accordingly, for all candidates, the cut off date for eligibility was fixed as 30th April. 7. 7. It was further urged so far as the ad hoc or contract temporary employees are concerned, they were also treated eligible in the category of in-service candidates only if 3 years' rural service is completed on or before 30th April, thus, there exists no discrimination in the action of the respondents moreso when in view of the judgment of this court, ad hoc and contract employees were treated as eligible for consideration in the in-service candidates category, thus, in view of above, it is prayed that these writ petitioners having no merit may be dismissed. 8. The further argument of the leave counsel for the petitioner was that it was a policy decision of the respondents and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director, Medical Education, Lucknow & Ors. v. Dr. Swapnil Chauhan, reported in, (2000) 10 SCC 585 and in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Dr. Anto Joseph and Ors., reported in, (1998) 6 SCC 215 , the court should not interfere in those conditions. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. In the case of Mridul Dhar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex court gave certain directions and guidelines in regard of the matter. In para 31 of the aforesaid judgment, the time schedule for admission to the postgraduate and superspeciality course was given as under:-- 11. It is a case pertaining to State quota and perusal of the aforesaid schedule shows that so far as the State quota is concerned, the entrance examination is required to be conducted in the mid of January to mid of February and thereupon the results have to be declared by 28th February. The first round of counselling/admission is to be completed by 25th April and the last date of joining the allotted college and course is fixed as 1st May and no further date exists for State quota. Schedule for admission Postgraduate courses Superspeciality courses All-India quota State quota Conduct of entrance examination Second Sunday of January Mid-Jan. to Mid-Feb. The first round of counselling/admission is to be completed by 25th April and the last date of joining the allotted college and course is fixed as 1st May and no further date exists for State quota. Schedule for admission Postgraduate courses Superspeciality courses All-India quota State quota Conduct of entrance examination Second Sunday of January Mid-Jan. to Mid-Feb. May-June Declaration of result of qualifying exam Third week of February By 28th February By 30th June First round of counselling/admissions 5th March to 22nd March To be over by 25th April To be over by 25th July Last date for joining the allotted college and course 7th April 1st May 31st July Second round of counselling or allotment of seats from waiting list No second counselling No second counselling No second counselling Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counselling or from the waiting list After 7th April vacant seats will stand surrendered back to the States/Colleges Not applicable Not applicable Commencement of academic session 2nd May - 1st August Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason 31st May - 30th September Time Schedule for Post-Graduate and Superspeciality Course Admissions 12. If we look at the calendar, then so far as the State quota is concerned, everything has to be completed by 1st May of the year concerned because so far as 31st May of the year is concerned, the same is in regard to the vacancies arising due to any reason, but that is in all India quota, whereas the present matter pertains to State quota, thus, the very argument taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Apex Court has fixed 31st May of the year as last date for admission is not correct and for the sake of argument, even if 31st May is taken as the last date for admission under the State quota also, then also it is against the vacancies arising due to any reasons, thus, it is not for general vacancies which are to be filled in any case of or before 1st May of the year. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given last date for admission to be 31st May in certain contingencies which cannot mean that an earlier date cannot be fixed for admission. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given last date for admission to be 31st May in certain contingencies which cannot mean that an earlier date cannot be fixed for admission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given different dates which have wrongly been considered to be cut off dates by the petitioners. In fact, a close look to the schedule shows that for the State quota, a candidate is required to join on 1st May, thus, a day earlier being 30th April, there is nexus in determining the aforesaid date as the cut off date for eligibility because before joining the course by a candidate, he should be eligible for the course he is admitted. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding challenge to the cut off date. 13. So far as the previous orders passed by the Government are concerned, a perusal of those orders shows that the cut off date changed in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, if we look at the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mridul Dhar (supra), then firstly 31st May is not the last date of admission for the State quota and secondly when the last date for admission in the State quota is fixed as 1st May of the year with a further condition that second counselling would not be conducted, then it is not becoming clear as to how in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 31st May can be fixed as the cut off date by the State Government rather it goes against the judgment. In any case, the State Government has not passed any such order for the year in dispute and the past practice having not been found in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rather in view of the decision of the first issue regarding justification of the fixing cut off date, I find that 31st May of the year concerned, cannot be fixed as cut off date for judging eligibility. In view of above also, the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted being contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court. 14. In view of above also, the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted being contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court. 14. So far as the third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it has been made clear by the learned counsel for the respondents that no ad hoc or contract or temporary employee has been permitted or treated eligible in the category of in-service candidates except those who have completed 3 years' rural service by 30th April, thus, having completed 3 year of required service in rural area, a candidate has been treated as eligible and thereby no discrimination exists because the petitioners are those who admittedly would not be completing 3 years' rural service on or before 30th April, 2009. It has already been made clear that ad hoc or contract service is being treated as service for judging eligibility in the category of in-service candidate and otherwise the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that he has not made a challenge to the aforesaid aspect. Looking to the aforesaid as well as the fact the even for a fresh candidate, the cut off date for judging eligibility is fixed as 30th April, thus, in view of above, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be discriminatory. 15. My attention has also been drawn in reference to the judgment of this court on the same issue in 2 writ petitions, which was in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. University of Rajasthan & Ors. and Dr. Amit Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan , it is stated that therein the same issue was decided by this court against the petitioners. In view of the discussion made above and also taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that High Court should not generally interfere in the instructions fixing eligibility and other conditions for admission in certain courses, I find that not only for the reason, but even looking to the merits of the case, the prayer so made by the petitioners cannot be accepted, thus, all these writ petitions deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. This also disposes of all the application listed before me with these matters.All Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******