P.K. LOHRA, J.

1. Challenge to the vires of Rule 21(3) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1962’) by Dr. Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit, petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4350/12, suffered hiccup when a judgment rendered by Division Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18662/12 (Dr. Swati Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) dated 13th of December 2013 declaring Rule 21(3) of the Rules of 1962 intra-vires is brought to its notice.

2. Although judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Dr. Swati Panwar (supra) caused serious jolt to the espoused cause, however, the writ-petitioner persisted with his challenge to the vires of the Rule by taking shelter of some other grounds, which according to him were not canvassed before the Division Bench earlier. Considering the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the writ-petitioner, substantial & weighty, the Division Bench vide its order dated 14th of March, 2018 formulated questions requiring consideration by Larger Bench. Thereupon, the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the Larger Bench for answering following three questions:

1. Whether rule 21(3) is liable to be declared unconstitutional as it amounts to double jeopardy as far as consideration of candidature of in-service candidates like the petitioner for direct recruitment to the teaching positions under the Rules of 1962 is concerned?

2. Whether the State while enacting law under proviso to Article 309 of the Rules of 1962 (Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII under Article 246 of the Constitution of India) could transgress the norms prescribed under the Regulations of 1998 framed by Medical Council of India through subordinate Legislation of Central Legislation (Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII under Article 246 of the Constitution of India) more particularly in view of the Authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments delivered in the case of UOI Vs. Shah Goverdhanlal Kabra Teachers College (reported in 2002 (8) SCC 228) and Sudhir N. Vs. State of Kerala (reported in 2015 (6) SCC 685)?

3. Whether there exist any rational basis based on quantifiable date which could show that the State has been successful in achieving the goal of population control vide enactment of such regressive provision in the form of Rule 21(3) of the Rules of 1962?

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and objective analysis of the grounds set out in the writ petition to assail vires of impugned rule, we are skeptical about emergence of referred Questions No.1 & 3 in the matter. Therefore, at the threshold, it would be just and appropriate to examine propinquity of these two questions in the factual backdrop.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, though initially persisted to examine and answer Question No.1 but later on abandoned it with a request to reframe/alter the same. Therefore, before taking up Question No.3, at this juncture, acceding to the plea of learned Senior Counsel for the writpetitioner, we feel persuaded to objectively examine it.

5. Mr. Singhvi contends that Court is empowered to alter or reframe the question for doing substantial justice. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that rigor of the impugned rule requires judicial scrutiny in the light of its adverse ramification on service career of the writ-petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel, further elaborating his submissions in this behalf, has urged that, in the light of fact scenario, legitimate grievances of the writpetitioner against impugned rule, which debars an incumbent for direct recruitment in the services and also creates an embargo for some duration in career advancement, is yet another plausible reason for reframing of the question to settle the law in an authoritative way. To substantiate his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following precedents:

(1) Indra Sawhney & Others Vs. Union Of India [1992 Supp (3) SC