The reduction of seats in PG Courses in Medical Colleges in Rajasthan was a valid administrative action taken after considering the recommendations of a committee appointed to suggest future policy for PG Courses.

1. - The reduction of seats in the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan in the Post Graduate Courses (here in after to be referred as 'the P.G. Courses') from 359 to 301 and specially the reduction of such seats in Jodhpur Medical College from 67 to 49 has caused grievance to the petitioners in these two writ petitions and they have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to quash the order of reduction of seats in Medical Colleges for the PG Courses and to provide admission in the PG Courses on the number of seats which were available last year.

2. As the point involved in both the writ petitions is the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common order. As the numbers of Exhibits in the two writ petitions are different, the number on the exhibits in Writ Petition No. 1192/88 are referred.

3. The petitioners have averred that they have passed their MBBS examination and completed Part-1 Rotating Internship on April 7, 1988 That, they desire to take admission for the PG Courses in the Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur which is under the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. That, the number of seats mentioned in Para-4 of Writ Petition No. 1192/88, allocated to the Medical Colleges at Jaipur" Jodhpur, Ajmer, Bikaner and Udaipur were according to the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India and the admissions are given according to the instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan and the University of Rajasthan in consultation with each other. That, the petitioners had joined Internship at Jodhpur, keeping in view that 67 seats for the PG Courses Were available at the Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and they would be given benefit of 5 marks at the time of admission in the PG Courses in comparison to the student not belonging to this College. That, this year the seats have been reduced in all Colleges, as stated in Para 7 of Writ Petition No. 1192/88. That, applications were invited by the Principal, Medical College, Jodhpur for admission in the PG Courses showing the availability of seats as 49. That, looking to the equipments and the staff to teach the students for the PG Courses, no reduction should have been made. That, the reduction is discriminatory in nature and no reason has been assigned for the percentage of reduction of seats in each of the five Medical Colleges in Rajasthan. In the petition special reference has been made to the seats available at Jaipur and Jodhpur for the PG Courses in Orthopaedic and Opthalmology which according to the petitioners are the Departments considered to be not only best in Rajasthan but best in the country. That, on account of the reduction of the seats petitioners have not only been deprived from admission in the PG Courses at Jodhpur but have also been deprived from applying in other examinations conducted by the UPGC in the PG Courses in Institutions of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and the Combined Medical Services Examinations, 1988 because the reduction of seats had not been informed earlier to enable the petitioners for admission in other Courses. That, looking to the area and population served by Jodhpur College and Hospital, the percentage of reduction in comparison to Jaipur Medical College is discriminatory. That, the right for admission for education is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and when the facilities and equipments and staff are available in the Dr. S N. Medical College to train the existing number of seats, the reduction in seats is arbitrary in nature. That, without reduction in the strength of staff and equipments from the Colleges, the reduction of seats would mean that the State Government does not want to properly utilise the services available for imparting education for the PG Courses.

4. In reply to the show cause notice issued to the respondents, the maintainability of the writ petition has been challenged on the ground that there is no ille