A classification made by a rule or regulation must be based on an intelligible differentia and must bear a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or regulation.

ORDER :- In these two Writ Petitions analogously heard, two doctors as applicants for admission to post-graduate course in Preventive and Social Medicine and T.B. and Chest Diseases, have Challenged the legality of Rule VI of the Rules adopted as criteria for selection to post-graduate courses in the Goa Medical College, Panaji, and consequent cancellation of their selection to do postgraduate courses in the two subject as aforesaid.

2. The following facts are not in dispute:-

The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 114/78 was selected for registration for post-graduate course in P.S.M. by Serial No. 11 in the Notice dated 25-9-78 issued by the Office of the Dean, Academic Section, Goa Medical College, Panaji. The name of the other petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 115/78 appears against serial No. 12 of the aforesaid Notice for doing M.D. in T.B. and Chest Diseases. In the subsequent Notice dated 29-9-78 (vide annexure-L) the petitioner, Dr. Alberto Jose Maria DSouza, has been directed to do Diploma course in Public Health and in his place Dr. Anil Namdev Pednekar, respondent No. 4 in writ petition No. 114/28, has been granted admission for registration for doing M.D. in PSM. In annexure-O (of Writ Petition No. 115/78) dated 28-9-78, petitioner, Dr. Ana Rosa Filomena Cunegunde Ribeiro, has been dropped and in her place Dr. Anthony Menezes Mesquita (respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 115/78) was selected to do M.D. in T.B. and Chest Diseases. It is further not in dispute that the two petitioners after being selected had paid the registration fee and obtained proper receipts thereof. It is also not in dispute that the two candidates selected in place of the petitioners had inferior academic records than those of the petitioners. On inquiry, the petitioners were informed by the Authorities that change in their selection was necessary in view of Rule VI which provided that only those candidates who were working in the Institution as Residents/ Demonstrators would be considered for selection. Rule VI may be quoted here as follows :-

(VI) Only those candidates who are working in the institution as Residents/ Demonstrators will be considered for selection. Others may be considered provided a vacancy still remains."

3. It is the common ground of the petitioners that Rule VI creates an artificial classification which is not based on any intelligible differentia and there is no nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. The exclusion of other persons not working in the institution but still exercising functions and performing duties substantially similar to those of the Residents/Demonstrators is wholly arbitrary, improper and unreasonable and founded on no principles whatsoever. The said rule thus infringes Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The regulations made u/s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, do not also require that the candidate should be working as Resident/Demonstrator at the time of making application for registration/selection. What all the Regulations require is that the candidate must have done one year Housemanship prior to his admission to the post-graduate Degree or Diploma courses. Rule VI framed by the Dean and the Goa Association of Resident Doctors is not in consonance with the criteria for the selection of candidates laid down in the said Regulations referred to above. In addition to the above common ground, the petitioner in SCA 114/78 has taken a further ground saying that since PSM is not a clinical subject the rules including Rule VI adopted for selection of candidates for postgraduate courses in that subject are not applicable.

4. None of the respondents had chose to file returns in answer to the rule nisi issued. But Mr. Dias, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in both the petitions, tried to justify Rule VI as constitutionally valid. According to him, the Authorities have not contravened any provision of the Constitution