Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 186
High Court Of Orissa
R. K. PATRA, S. C. DATTA
HEMANTA, CHANDRA PANDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. 6632 Of 1996
Decided On : 12/09/1996
A.C.MOHANTY, A.DEO, B.DAS, B.K.MISHRA, B.M.PATNAIK, B.MOHANTY, B.N.TRIPATHY, B.P.MOHAPATRA, B.S.MISHRA, B.S.TRIPATHY, C.R.NANDA, C.R.SATPATHY, D.BHANJA, D.CHAUDHURY, D.K.DEY, D.K.SAHU, D.MAHAPATRA, D.OHAPATRA, D.P.Aneja, D.P.Dhal, D.PANDA, D.PRADHAN, G.R.MOHANTY, H.K.MALLICK, H.SVAN, J.K.MISHRA, J.K.PANDEY, J.Katikia, J.Patnaik, JAGABANDHU SAHU, K.K.Mohanty, K.MOHANTY, L.DAS, L.JENA, L.Kanungo, M.CHANDER, M.R.MISHRA, MILAN KANUNGO, N.C.MOHANTY, N.Jena, P.K.MISHRA, P.K.MOHAPATRA, P.K.RATH, P.K.Rout, P.K.ROY CHAUDHARY, P.K.SAHU, P.PALIT, PRASANNA MISHRA, R.C.PRAHARAJ, S.A.ALI, S.B.JANE, S.C.KARNADIKAR, S.DAS GUPTA, S.K.BEHERA, S.K.GHOSH, S.K.MISHRA, S.K.MOHANTY, S.K.Mohapatra, S.K.Mund, S.K.PADHI, S.Mishra, S.MOHANTY, S.N.Mishra, S.Palit, S.PANDA, S.PARIDA, S.S.RAO, S.SEN, SANDIP PARIDA, SUSHANT KUMAR DAS, T.K.MOHAPATRA, Y.DAS
The selection process for admission to Post-graduate Courses in Government Medical Colleges must be fair, transparent, and based on merit, while also ensuring that the reservation policies are upheld.
Headnote:
ADMISSION TO POST-GRADUATE COURSES IN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGES - CUT-OFF DATE FOR FULFILLING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS - MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS FOR IN-SERVICE CANDIDATES - FILLING UP OF UNFILLED SEATS FROM IN-SERVICE QUOTA - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED CANDIDATES - ALLEGATION OF WRONG, CONFUSING OR AMBIGUOUS QUESTIONS IN THE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
Batch of petitions challenging the admission process to Post-graduate Courses in Government Medical Colleges in the State. Grievances raised included the cut-off date for fulfilling eligibility requirements, minimum qualifying marks for in-service candidates, filling up of unfilled seats from in-service quota, reservation of seats for SC, ST, and PH candidates, and allegations of wrong, confusing, or ambiguous questions in the entrance examination.
Finding of the Court:
1. The cut-off date of 31-3-1996 for fulfilling eligibility requirements was upheld as valid. 2. The minimum qualifying marks of 50% (40% for SC/ST) for in-service candidates were upheld as valid. 3. The decision to fill up unfilled seats from the in-service quota by direct candidates on merit basis, while maintaining the reservation percentages, was upheld as valid. 4. The allegation that some questions in the entrance examination were wrong, confusing, or ambiguous was rejected after obtaining the opinion of concerned Professors-cum-Heads of Departments.
Issues: 1. Validity of the cut-off date for fulfilling eligibility requirements. 2. Validity of the minimum qualifying marks for in-service candidates. 3. Filling up of unfilled seats from in-service quota without insisting on the cut-off marks. 4. Filling up of unfilled seats from in-service quota by direct candidates without maintaining the reservation. 5. Allegation of wrong, confusing, or ambiguous questions in the entrance examination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot be dubbed as arbitrary unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical. 2. Fixing of minimum qualifying marks for in-service candidates is not discriminatory as they compete for a separate quota of seats. 3. Filling up of unfilled seats from the in-service quota by direct candidates on merit basis, while maintaining the reservation percentages, is valid. 4. The allegation of wrong, confusing, or ambiguous questions in the entrance examination was rejected based on the opinion of concerned Professors-cum-Heads of Departments.
Final Decision: Petitions disposed of. The cut-off date for fulfilling eligibility requirements and the minimum qualifying marks for in-service candidates were upheld as valid. The decision to fill up unfilled seats from the in-service quota by direct candidates on merit basis, while maintaining the reservation percentages, was upheld as valid. The allegation of wrong, confusing, or ambiguous questions in the entrance examination was rejected. Directions were given for re-evaluating the answer papers of petitioners to account for questions found to have incorrect model answers.
R. K. PATRA, J.
( 1 ) IN this batch of petitions the controversy veers round the admission to Post-graduate Courses in the three Government Medical Colleges of the State. For the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.
( 2 ) APPLICATIONS in the prescribed forms were invited for selection of candidates for Post-Graduate Courses leading to M. D. / M. S. Degree and Higher Specialities Courses, 1996 available in the three Government Medical Colleges of the State. The last date of receipt of application forms was 30-5-1996. (In these matters, as there is no grievance with regard to admission to Higher Specialities courses, we have not referred to any clause of the prospectus dealing with that course ). As prescribed under clause 9 of the prospectus a competitive entrance examination was hld on 16-6-1996 to fill up 184 seats in the Postgraduate Courses (91 seats for direct candidates and 93 seats for in-service candidates ). The break-up of the seats as indicated in clause 5. 1 of the prospectus is extracted hereunder : Courses. Generals. C. (8%)S. T. (12%)Physically handicappedtotal M. D. / M. S. P. G. Courses. Direct72711191in-service74711193 Clause 11. 2 of the prospectus provided that candidates securing less than 50% marks (40% marks in case of S. C. /s. T.) in the enrance examination would not be considered for admission and their names would not be included in the merit list. On 3-7-1996 the result was published containing a list of candidates to have qualified in the extrance examination. All the seats allotted to direct candidates were filled up from the merit list but all the 93 seats ear-marked for in-service candidates, however, could not be filled up because of no-availability of eligible candidates securing the minimum prescribed marks. As a result, 37 seats (20 general and 17 reserved) have remained unfilled. During the pendency of these petitions, the Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department in letter No. 34095 dated 22-8-1996 communicated its decision that the seats of in-service quota which have remained vacant due to want of qualified in-service candidates are to be filled up by direct candidates on merit basis under different categories like general, S. C. , S. T. and physically handicapped. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the said Government decision at this stage which reads as follows :"xx xx xx. . . . . . . . . . . Government after careful consideration have been pleased to decide that the number of in-service seats which are likely to fall vacant due to want of qualified in-service candidates may be filled up by direct candidates on merit basis. While filling up the vacant seats, it should be ensured that the number of seats that will fall vacant under different categories like General, Sch. Caste and Sch. Tribe and Physically Handicapped are filled up by direct candidates of the same categories. In case of shortage of candidates in the category of S. C. or S. T. interchangeability may be followed as provided in clause 5. 6 of the prospectus. xx xx xx xx"in accordance with the aforesaid government decision, counselling was conducted on 28-8-1996 and 30-8-1996 and direct candidates have been selected from the merit list under different categories like general, S. T. , S. C, and Physically Handicapped to fill up the unfilled seats.
( 3 ) IN the factual back-drop as indicated above, these, petitions have come to be filed claiming different reliefs, O. J. C. No. 8789 of 1996 has been filed challenging the cut-off date i. e. 31-3-1996 fixed for fulfilling the eligibility requirements. In some of the petitions, in-service candidates are the petitioners. They have challenged the validity of clause 11. 2 of the prospectus which prescribed 50% (40% for S. C. and S. T.) as qualifying marks. According to them, no qualifying marks should be prescribed for them and in any case the unfilled (vacant) in-service seats should be made available to t
