Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 596 (MP)

Rohit Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-05-16

A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT: W.P. Nos. 4636/2015, 4942/2015 & 4946/2015: 1. These matters were listed yesterday for admission. Considering the arguments canvassed by the petitioners, in particular, with reference to challenge to eligibility clause specified in the M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course (Admission/Diploma) Admission Rules, 2015 being ultra vires and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as the process for admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Course for 259 State quota seats, is at an advanced stage upto 3rd counseling, we thought it appropriate to hear the matters on urgent basis today, though being a Court Holiday, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Accordingly, the matters have been notified today for hearing. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents/State, relying on the averments in the reply-affidavit filed to oppose these petitions and, in particular, the decision of the Supreme Court dt. 25.4.2014 in Ishita Dua & ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions. He submitted that each of the petitioners having passed MBBS/BDS Examination from Medical/Dental College of Madhya Pradesh, is being considered as eligible to participate in the admission process. None of the petitioners are disqualified or have been disqualified in terms of any other eligibility clause. More so, the Authorities are treating all the candidates, who have passed MBBS/BDS Examination from the Medical/BDS College of Madhya Pradesh as eligible to participate in the admission process both in terms of the Rules of 2014 as also now under the Rules of 2015. Once this statement is accepted, it necessarily follows that there is no surviving cause of action for any of the petitioners before us. In other words, there would be no violation of any fundamental rights of these petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they are being considered for admission as eligible candidates. Thus, it is not open to the petitioners to question the Rules on any other ground. As and when any candidate affected because of being treated as disqualified on account of one or the other clause of Rules of 2015, we may consider that challenge appropriately. We are not inclined to examine other questions which are academic, in view of the stand taken by the State mentioned hitherto. 4. As and when any candidate affected because of being treated as disqualified on account of one or the other clause of Rules of 2015, we may consider that challenge appropriately. We are not inclined to examine other questions which are academic, in view of the stand taken by the State mentioned hitherto. 4. As a result, we dispose of all these petitions (W.P. Nos. 4636/2015, 4942/2015 & 4946/2015) on the basis of assurance given by the State Authorities through counsel as noted earlier. W.P. Nos. 4662/2015, 4726/2015, 4858/2015 & 5459/2015: 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. These petitions have been filed by in-service candidates questioning the change introduced with regard to allocation of marks in Rule 9(4.1)(a) of the Rules of 2015. 7. Prima facie, we find force in the argument of the petitioners that the admission process having commenced pursuant to admission process for PG Course for academic year 2015-16 on the terms indicated in M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course (Degree/Diploma) Admission Rules, 2014, pursuant to notification dt. 28.11.2014; and candidates having participated in that process by appearing in Pre-PG Examination held in December, 2014, the change introduced in the Rules of 2015 titled as M.P. Medical and Dental Post-Graduate Course (Degree/Diploma) Admission Rules, 2015 for allocation of additional marks to the in-service candidates, which have come into force w.e.f. 26.3.2015, cannot be pressed into service. For, there is no indication in the Rules that the same have been brought into force with retrospective effect. 8. It is well established position that ordinarily the Rules cannot be given retrospective effect and more so, in the fact situation of the present case, where the process is already commenced on the basis of the terms specified in Rules of 2014. The Pre-PG Examination conducted in December 2014 in particular qua the norms for allocation of additional marks to in-service candidate must, therefore, adhere to the same. 9. Accordingly, by way of interim order, we direct that the respondents to continue with the admission process for PG course in respect of in-service candidates on the basis of the norms for allocation of additional marks to in-service candidates as mentioned in Rules 2014, which, however, will be subject to the outcome of these proceedings. 10. Issue notice to the respondents. 11. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General with Shri A.P. Singh, Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 10. Issue notice to the respondents. 11. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General with Shri A.P. Singh, Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 12. Respondents to file reply on or before 21st May, 2015 as prayed. 13. Accordingly, list these matters on 25th May, 2015, keeping in mind the dead-line of completing the admission process before 31st May, 2015 as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court.