Judgment:
P.C. Jain, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Dr. Pramod Sharma has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the criteria for selection of candidates for M.Ch. course contained in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 to be unconstitutional and further to direct to make selection for M.Ch. Courses on the basis of criteria contained in Schedule A.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his MBBS course from the University of Rajasthan in December 1982 and secured 52.2% marks. Thereafter the petitioner undertook one years's compulsory rotating internship. Later on, the petitioner was appointed in the Three Years' Residency in General Surgery in the year 1984. He completed Three Years Residency successfully and did his post graduation in General Surgery. He passed M.S. Examination, the result of which was declared by the University on 23-7-87. The petitioner worked in the Department of Urology during his Post Graduation. The petitioner, thus, contends that he has become eligible for selection for M.Ch. Course. The case of the petitioner further is that respondent No. 2, Principal, Medical College, Jaipur issued a notice on April 21-22, 1987 whereby applications were invited for selection of candidates for various M.Ch. Courses of two years' duration. After about a month, respondent No. 2 issued notice, dated 18th May, 1987, whereby the notice dated April 21-22, 1987, was withdrawn. Later on, a third notice dated July 25, 1987 was issued by respondent No. 2, whereby applications were invited afresh for selection of candidates seeking admission to M. Ch. Course. It is stated by the petitioner that the Govt. of Raj. had framed rules relating to selection of the candidates to D.M./M.Ch. Courses in the Medical Colleges in Raj. These courses were started in Raj. in 1982. Thus, the rules remained in force till the issuance of notice dated 22nd April, 1987. It is further stated that the Govt. is said to have issued some different rules, for prescribing criteria for judging the merit of the candidates. The petitioner has averred that the criteria for judging the merits of the candidates has been indicated in the notice dated 25th July, 1987, itself. As the petitioner and other candidates found the wholesome and arbitrary change in the criteria for adjudicating the merits of eligible candidates, they submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 on 7th July, 1987; but no reply was received. The petitioner has submitted that the change in the criteria will have serious consequences. By the new criteria, it is stated by the petitioner, the performance of the candidates at the final MBBS Examination has been given weightage and other aspects of adjudicating the merit have been ignored, or relegated to a very low position. The written test which should be the basis for selection for super speciality, has now been reduced to such an extent that it has lost its significance in the process of selection. It is, thus, submitted by the petitioner that the new criteria laid down by respondent No. 1 is per se arbitrary and discriminatory as it has given highly disproportionate weightage to the performance of the candidates at the final MBBS Examination and the performance of the candidates at the written test is rendered meaningless. The petitioner has further contended that a perusal of the qualifications prescribed by other medical institutions in the country would go to show that the performance at the written examination is given weightage as compared to the marks obtained at the final MBBS Examination. Thus, the respondents are now prescribing a totally different yard stick for selection of candidates. In short the contention of the petitioner is that the criteria is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. This Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition be not admitted, vide order dated 28th August, 1987.
4. In reply, the State has filed the return. In the written statement all the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It is contended that the criteria introduced on 24th June, 1987 suffers from no infirmity and the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. It is further stated that the guidelines have not excluded the performance in the written test, experience, research work and post graduate studies.
5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder the petitioner has submitted that the examinations have been held on 18th September, 1987. Although, in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 there was no reference to the interview.' In the notice issued on the 11th September, 1987, for the examination to be held on 11th Sept., 1987, a reference has been made to the interview. It is further stated that no marks have been provided for interview in the notice dated 25th July, 1987. The State has filed a reply to the rejoinder.
6. As per Schedule A, which contains rules relating to the selection of candidates to DM/M. Ch. in the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan, the following criteria to arrive at the merit of the candidate, has been laid down:
(A) [i] Academic career Passed final MBBS and PG Total MarksExamination in 1st attempt (to deduct 5 marks1/2 mark for every failure in Final MBBSor PG Examination).[ii] Experience 1 mark for each year's work 5 marksin eligible subjects.[iii] Research Publication and Presentations: 5 marks(a) Paper published in the subject in theInternational or recognised nationaljournal, 1 mark for each.(b) Paper published on the subject in anyother national journal, 1/2 mark for each.(c) Presentation of paper in the subject inState or National conference, 1 mark each.[iv] Position, Distinction, Prizes 5 marksMedals and commendations certificates(B) Internal AssessmentBoard for Internal assessment shallcomprise of at least 2 senior staff membersof the speciality department, InternalAssessment will consider of(i) Theory Examination: 25 marksMultiple choice theory question papersof 1-1/2 hours in the subject.(ii) Interview 5 marksA formal interview will be held headedby the Head of the Institution and thevarious guides in the specialityconcerned. Number of candidates calledfor final interview would be twice thenumber of seats available.
7. The new criteria contained in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 read with modification order dated 16th September, 1987 is as follows:
The merit of the candidates shall be determined on the following criteria: S.No. Academic record Max. Marks Marks allocation(1) Final MBBS 100 Percentage of marks obtainedin final MBBS;(2) MD/MS 5 5 if passe in 1st attempt,4 if passed in 2nd attempt;(3) Rajasthan University 5 5 if the candidates isGold Medal awarded University Goldfor Standing 1st Medal for standing 1st andand IInd in final IInd in final MBBSMBBS Exam. Examination of the University.(4) Written test 10
Note:
The written test referred to above shall be conducted by the Selection Committee.
[5] The total marks so obtained shall be increased by 5 if the candidate has passed Final M.B.B.S. Examination as well as M.D./M.S. Examination from the University of Rajasthan.
8. A perusal of these two criteria would indicate that previously under the head academic career' 5 marks were provided for passing final MBBS and PG examination in the 1st attempt (to deduct 1/2 mark for every failure in Final M.B.B.S. or P.G Examination). Now, for the final M.B.B.S. 100 marks are allocated with percentage of marks obtained in final M.B.B.S. and for M.D./M.S. five marks are allocated if passed in 1st attempt, four marks for passing in 2nd attempt, whereas 5 marks were provided for experience and five marks for research publication and presentation. But, no such marks are now provided in the new criteria laid down in the notice dated 25th July, 1987.
9. Shri G.S. Singhvi learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the new criteria for adjudging the merit of the candidate as has been indicated in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 are arbitrary and discriminatory. He submitted that it is wholly irrational apart from being unreasonable. The submission of Shri Singhvi is that the new criteria have given disproportionate weightage to the performance of the candidates at the final M.B.B.S. Examination and the basic qualification for selection to M.Ch. Courses, which is the post-graduation in a particular subject has been ignored. There is no criterion for evaluating the performance of the candidate which he has achieved after passing the M.B.B.S. Examination. Even the basic consideration, regarding written examination, has not been given the correct weightage. The submission of Shri Singhvi further is that in the performance of the candidates at the written test is made meaningless, as even if a candidate secures full marks at the written examination he is likely to be thrown out of zone of consideration on the basis of the marks in the final M.B.B.S. Examination. Shri Singhvi has also pointed out that there are other medical institutions in the country where qualifications have been prescribed and the criteria laid down by the said institutions would go to show that the performance at the written examination is given weightage as compared to the marks obtained at the final M.B.B.S. Examination. He has laid stress that there is no justification for prescribing a totally different yard slick for selection of candidate by respondent No. 1 as compared to the other medical institutions in the country.
10. Controverting the submissions of Shri Singhvi, Shri M.I. Khan, Additional Advocate General has submitted that the guide-lines given in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 for adjudging the merit of the candidate is perfectly justified The criteria for giving weightage to the final M.B.B.S. Examination is to evaluate the real picture of the merit of the candidate. The marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. final examination relate to various teachers internal/ external of nine subjects, while for the post-graduate studies and research work only the guide is concerned and it is on the complaint of favouritism and arbitrariness that the new guide-lines, as aforesaid, have been provided. It has a good nexus with the merit of the candidate, which is the sole consideration for the selection. Shri Khan has submitted that additional weightage has also been given to the post-graduate studies, research work and attempts and medals and, thus, the criteria introduced on 24th June, 1987, or given in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 suffers from no infirmity.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. Shri G.S. Singhvi has placed reliance on the following authorities: [1] Pradeep Jain v. Union of India : (1984)IILLJ481SC ; [2] Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad : AIR1985SC1059 ; [3] Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad : [1987]3SCR744 ; and [4] Dr. Sunil v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 Bom 291.
13. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court that admissions shall be based only on merit because the object must be to select best and most meritorious students.
14. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Some Universities may be very liberal in their marking while some others may be strict. There would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative merits of the students can be judged. It would be wholly unjust to grant admissions to students by assessing their relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by them not at the same qualifying examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying examinations held by different State Government or Universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be blatently violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
15. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, (supra) the Supreme Court clarified certain aspects of the scheme which it had earlier framed for the admission of the students to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and postgraduate specialities. In Dr. Sunil v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (supra), the Bombay High Court after examining a number of cases of the Supreme Court held as follows:
In the above view of the matter, it is not possible to accept Sri Bhagalia's submissions that until it was possible to hold the All India Entrance Examination, the relative merits of the students could be judged on the basis of marks obtained in the MBBS examination held by different Universities. Besides, qualifying examination for post-graduate (super specialities) course is the post-graduate degree and not graduate degree. Therefore, judging relative merits for registration to post graduate (super specialities) course on the basis of marks obtained in MBBS examination merely because grades and not marks are awarded in post-graduate degree examination could certainly be not accepted as a proper method at all.
16. In Dr. Sunil's case (supra), the Bombay High Court clearly observed that qualifying examination for post graduate (super specialities) Course is post graduate degree and not graduate degree and therefore the relative merit for registration to post-graduate (super specialities) courses on the basis of the marks obtained in the MBBS Examination merely because grades and not marks are awarded in post degree examination would certainly be not accepted as proper method at all. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, referred to above, it is evident that for judging the relative merit of the students, weightage to the extent given by the respondents in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 cannot be given on the basis of the marks obtained in the final MBBS Examination. For admission to super specialities, the MBBS final marks cannot be regarded as qualifying examination. For super specialities qualifying examination is post graduate degree and not graduate degree. It may be observed here that previously as per Schedule A, five marks were given for passing the final MBBS and the PG Examination in first attempt, whereas 105 marks have been given in the impugned notice dated 25th July, 1987, wherin 100 marks are allocated for final MBBS Examination and for MD/ MS for passing in first attempt, five marks have been allocated. Thus, the criteria laid down in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 read with the modified notice dated 16th September, 1987 do not stand the test of reasoning as laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, referred to above. We are in agreement with the observations made by the Bombay High Court . in Dr. Sunil's case (supra). We, thus, find that there is merit in the submission of Shri Singhvi that the new criteria laid down by the respondents are arbitrary and discriminatory as the criteria given in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 have given highly disproportionate weightage to the performance of the candidates at the final MBBS Examination. The performance of the candidate at the final MBBS Examination has already been taken into consideration at the time when the selection for three year's residency/post-graduate courses was made. In our opinion to prescribe 100 max. marks at the final MBBS Examination as the basis for selection for super specialities is wholly irrational and unreasonable. The basic qualification for the selection to the M.Ch. Course should have been the post-graduation in a particular subject, the other academic attainment achieved by the candidate after the passing of the final MBBS Examination i.e. any research work done by the candidates, or paper published by him, or presentation of the paper in the subject in the State or national conference. Though, it is not possible to formulate an all inclusive and exhaustive test that would adequately solve the problem for considering various criteria for selection of candidates to super specialities as selection to speciality involves not only a delicate, but complete problem involving consideration of different factors, which are extremely difficult to judge and not easily susceptible to evaluation. The criteria should have rational relation to the object of selection, namely to get the best and the meritorious candidate and must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To achieve it. proper weightage may be given to academic record, extra curricular activities, candidates' fine-tuned performance and attainments, his special experience in the concerned discipline, written examination, clinical examination and viva and other such reasonable considerations having the. nexus between them and the object to be achieved.
17. Respondent No. 3 Dr. Rajeev Sharma was impleaded as a party vide order dated 15th January, 1988. In reply to the writ petition he has filed his return contending that the petitioner having passed his MS Examination in the year 1987 was not legally entitled to complete for the seat in the M.Ch. courses belonging to the quota of 1986 and, thus, has no locus standi to challenge the new criteria. We find that there is no impediment in this regard in the University Ordinance and further there is part practice to give admission for the M.Ch. course against the quota of previous year. Dr. Kamlesh Sharma and Dr. Miss Bbargava who had passed the MS Course in 1986 were given admission for the M Ch Course against the quota of 1985 and apart from the petitioner Dr. Khusi Ram, Dr. Bhupendra Sharma, Dr. S.S. Yadav and Dr. Pradeep Bajpai have appeared for admission in the M.Ch. Course in the 1987, although they all had passed the MS Course in July, 1986. We thus, find no force in the contention of Shri B.K. Sharma. learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
18. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the writ petition, declare the notice dated 25th July, 1987, Annx. 3 and the notice dated 16the September, 1987, to be unconstitutional and violative, of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondent No. 1 to prescribe criteria for making selection for the M.Ch. Courses on the basis of the observations made by us in this judgment within the para-meters of Ordinance 278 D I and II. The respondents shall publish the guide-lines within two months and selection will be made on the basis of the new criteria and till then no selection for M.Ch. Courses on the basis of the criteria contained in the notice dated 25th July, 1987 shall be made. However it would be open to the respondents to make selection for the M.Ch. Courses on the basis of the criteria contained in Schedule A to the writ petition, if they do not propose to prescribe new criteria.
19. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.