JUDGMENT- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.:---All these petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment, as they involve common question of law.

2. All the petitioners are challenging the refusal to their admission to the post-graduate degree course on the ground that they were not eligible to be considered as they had already joined and were already registered for diploma courses. It is an admitted position and a common ground that the petitioners have lost their admission to the degree courses owing to the fact that they were already admitted to the diploma courses.

3. For the sake of convenience, we shall state the facts in Writ Petition No. 3258 of 1992 filed by Dr. Sheela Laxmikant Kulwal. It is an admitted position that the advertisement for the course of N.S. (opthalmology) was issued on 4-11-1992. This advertisement was for July, 1992 batch. It is commonly understood that there are two terms, first term beginning from January upto July and the second term beginning from July. The said terms are given in the prospectus where they are described as under :

(1) First Term : 1st January to 15th May; and

(2) Second Term : 1st July to 15th November.

It is an admitted position that the advertisement dated 4-11-1992 was for the July, 1992 batch and the said advertisement was for 2 seats for M.S. (Opthalmology). The petitioner applied on 20-11-1992 and also made a representation showing her willingness to resign from the course of D.O.M.S., which she was already undergoing. It must be stated here that the petitioner was already selected for D.O.M.S. course in response to advertisement for the January, 1992 batch, but it is also an admitted position that the petitioner was given her admission only somewhere in July, 1992. Since the petitioner was not considered, she challenges her non-selection by this petition, as, in fact, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 5, who is selected, has less marks inasmuch as the petitioner had scored 130 out of 200 marks, while respondent No. 5 had scored 129 out of 200 marks and was less meritoreus as compared to her. We are setting out the facts in this petition only to formulate the questions on which all these petitions will have to be decided. Needless to say that the facts in all the other three petitions are similar in nature.

4. The State of Maharashtra has formulated Rules for the admission to the Post-Graduate Courses under the Government Resolution dated 24th October, 1991. This Resolution is more or the less a result of the Full Bench judgment delivered by this Court dated 16-9-1991 in Writ Petition No. 2569 of 1990 with Writ Petition No. 1306 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 1652 of 1991, reported in (Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar and others v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1992(1) Mah.L.R. 493 In the said Full Bench judgment, this Court had, inter alia, held that the Rules for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses, which then were in existence being the 1989 Rules, 1990 Rules and 1991 Rules, were invalid and could not be applied, as they were bad for non-application of mind. It is in pursuance of this Full Bench judgment that the State of Maharashtra was required thereafter to provide for the fresh rules, which, as per the directions of the Full Bench, were more or the less based on the Rules of 1971.

5. For the purposes of understanding the present controversy, some Rules will have to be quoted. Rule 2 runs as under :

"Each recognised post graduate teacher in Clinical Para-Clinical and Basic Medical subject shall admit for post-graduate registration not more than two candidates per year in a Unit for University Post-Graduate degree or diploma taken together, i.e. one per term of six months or as allowed according to rules of the Medical Council of India. The students whose terms are complete will not count. Students whose terms are intimated to be discontinued by the College will also not count. Concurrent registration of same student in diploma and degree, and 2 specialities at a time will not be pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document