P.S. Asopa, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. That by the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Circular/guide lines dated 05.01.1998 so far as it excludes the State of Rajasthan with regard to allotment of seat in M.D.S. Course under the Central Pool Quota and has further sought the direction for consideration of his case for forthcoming sessions of 2005-06 in case he is not given admission in the current session.

3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed his BDS Course from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1996 successfully. Thereafter the petitioner was registered with the Dental Council of India. Subsequently he was selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 1997 on the post of Medical Officer (Dental) and is presently working on the said post. Since, the petitioner wants to pursue his further studies in Dental Surgery i.e., Masters of Dental Surgery, he applied to the State of Rajasthan through proper channel and since the studies in the said course is not available in the State of Rajasthan, he also applied through State of Rajasthan to the Union of India for pursuing the said course as per the Dental Council of India Act and in the central pool quota. The Government of India has issued a guideline on 05.01.1998, laying down certain criteria of eligibility and selection process to be followed in the nomination of candidates against the Central Pool MDS Seats for the academic session 1997-98 on wards. As per the said guide lines Delhi, Orissa and Rajasthan were excluded.

4. The petitioner has also stated in his writ petition that the basic objective of providing central pool MDS Seats is to give benefit to the State/UTs which do not have Post Graduate Dental Education facility. The State of Rajasthan is not having such facility but still the State has not been included, which is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. The Union of India has also filed reply and submitted that the guide line dated 05.01.1998 is to be reviewed and a Committee has been constituted as regards the inclusion of Rajasthan State in the lines of beneficiary scheme, the same would also be subject to the recommendation of the Committee but the non-inclusion has not been justified by the Union of India.

6. Based on the aforesaid averments, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the non-inclusion of Rajasthan State under the said guidelines is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.

7. The submission of Counsel for the State is that a Committee has been constituted to review the guidelines and issue of inclusion of Rajasthan is sub-juiced before the Committee.

8. I have considered the rival submission of the parties. The petitioner submitted an application for the year 2004-05 having 61% marks and the candidate recommended from central was having 57% marks and the case of the petitioner was not considered on account of the fact of non-inclusion of State of Rajasthan in the guidelines dated 05.01.1998. The relevant portion of the guideline is reproduced hereunder:-

“Criteria for allotment of Seats:-The four MDS seats presently available in the central pool will be allotted to the eligible States/UTs on a rotational basis by maintaining a roster. In this roster the States/UTs which received the least number of central pool seats will be placed on top and the onces which received the maximum number of seats will be at the bottom. As per this principle, the order in which the States/UTs will be considered for allotment of seats from the 1997-98 academic session onwards is as follows:-

Sl/No. State/UT

1. Arunachal Pradesh

2. Mizoram

3. A&N Islands

4. Dadra and Nagar Haveli

5. Daman and Diu

6. Manipur

7. Meghalaya

8. Lakshadweep

9. Pondicherry

10. Sikkim

11. Nagaland

12. Jammu and Kashmir

13. Himachal Pradesh

14. Tripura The seats will be offered to the States/UTs in the above order. In case any of the States/UTs who