Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, SRIRAMULU
M.MOHAN REDDY - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 09-07-82
MEDICAL EDUCATION - POST GRADUATE COURSES - ADMISSION - RULE 5 (4) OF THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE COURSES IN MEDICAL COLLEGES IN THE STATE - VALIDITY - RULE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who had passed their MBBS examination, appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Director of Medical Education for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses. They were admitted to various Diploma Courses. Subsequently, they took the entrance examination for admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses and secured good ranks. However, they were denied admission to the courses of their choice due to Rule 5 (4) of the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges in the State, which prohibited applicants who were admitted and registered for a Post Graduate Diploma Course in a subject in any particular group from being considered for admission to P. G. degree course in the subjects available in any other groups. The petitioners challenged the validity of the rule, contending that it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 5 (4) of the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges in the State was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the rule was intended to increase the proficiency and efficiency of a candidate in a particular subject and that the subjects in the several groups were allied subjects. Therefore, if a candidate after having studied a particular subject in the Diploma course in one group for a considerable period was permitted to go to any subject in another group which was unconnected with the subject, the entire study that he had made and the investment made by the Government on him would go a waste.
Issues: Whether Rule 5 (4) of the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges in the State was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 5 (4) of the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges in the State was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the rule was intended to increase the proficiency and efficiency of a candidate in a particular subject and that the subjects in the several groups were allied subjects. Therefore, if a candidate after having studied a particular subject in the Diploma course in one group for a considerable period was permitted to go to any subject in another group which was unconnected with the subject, the entire study that he had made and the investment made by the Government on him would go a waste.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise the question relating to the constitutional validity of Rule 5 (4) of the Rules for admission to Post Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges in the State (hereinafter referred to as the Rules .)
( 2 ) THE petitioners have passed their MB8s examiaation. They appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Director, of medical Education in September, 1981 for the purpose of admission to the post Graduate Medical Courses. On the basis of the results of the entrance test, the first petitioner in W. P. No, 4659 of 1982 was admitted in the diploma Course in Opthalmlogy. The second petitioner secured Admission in the Diploma Course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The third petitioner, was admitted in the Diploma Course in Medical Radiology and diagnosis. The petitioner in W. P No 5046 of; 1982 was admitted to the diploma Course in Child Health. They joined the said Diploma Course.
( 3 ) THE State Government issued G. O. Ms No. 436 Mandh dated 26-5-1982 incorporating the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate Medical courses in the Medical Colleges in the State for the year 1982, Th. e entrance Test for admission to the course v. as held on 27-6-1982. The petitioners took the entrance examination. The results of the entrance felt were declared on 26-7-1982. The petitioners in W. P. No. 4659 of 1982 secured 4th, 3rd and 11th ranks respectively, while the petititioner in w P. No. 5046 of 19s2 secured 5th rank. The admission to the Post graduate courses of study will be made on the basis of- the ranks which the candidates obtain in the entrance examination.
( 4 ) THE choice of study of the first petitioner in W. P. No. 4659 of 1982 was M. D Paediatrics or M. D. General Medicine. The petitioners 2 and 3 were interested in studying M. S. (General Surgery ). The petitioner in W. P. No. 5046 of 1982 was also interested in studying Gtneral surgery. But the petitioners were informed orally that in view of Rule 5 (4) of the Rules they cannot seek admission in the courses chosen by them. Instead the first petitioner in W. P. No. 4659 of 1982 was selected for m. S. (General Surgery) and the petitioners 2 and 3 were selected for M. D. (Ganeral Medicine ). The petitioner in W. P. No. 5046 of 1982 was given a seat in M. D. General Medicine. The petitioners question the validity of rule 5 (4) of the Rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine the soundness of the contention, it would be useful to notice that there are 31 courses of study in the various subjects for which entrance test was held. These 31 courses are divided into 4 Groups, viz. , (i) Medicine Group; (ii) Surgical Group ; (iii) obstetrics and Gynaecology; and (iv) Non-clinical Group. There are 10 courses of study under the 1st group, 6 under the 2nd group, 3 under the 3rd Group and 10 under the 4th group. It is unnecessary for us to go into question whether the grouping of these courses is proper or not as it is not within the domain of judicial power and this grouping is purely within the domain of the Medical Council of India. Now Rule 5 (4) says :"applicants who are admitted and registered for a Post graduate Diploma Course in a subject in any particular group shall not be considered for admission to P. G. degree course IB the subjects available in any other groups. "there is no dispute that the petitioners are admitted and registered for a post Graduate diploma course of study in one of the groups. Undet the rule, they shall not be considered for admission to the Post Graduate in the subjects available in any other group. The petitioners are admitted in accordance with the Rule. They claim for admission to subjects in other groups but were denied.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Narasimha Reddy submits that the Rule is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He argues that there is no nexus between the object sought to be achieved viz ,
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
