The court emphasized that the existing policy and Prospectus did not violate the law or discriminate against the petitioners, and it upheld the validity of the admission process for the P. G. (Medical) Course.

( 1 ) HEARD further argument from the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the writ petitions and also reply submitted by learned advocate General on behalf of the State, reply by Mr. R. C. Mohanty learned counsel on behalf of the Medical council of India, reply by Mr. Rabi Narayan acharya, learned Advocate on behalf of the post-Graduate (Medical) Selection Committee and argument by Sri Rajat Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate representing the interest of the interveners and reply from learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and all the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner.

( 2 ) ON consent, of the parties, analogous hearing of all the cases is made, because the dispute is relating to different norms fixed by the Government in the Prospectus in respect of the admission to the Post-Graduate (Medical) Course and this common judgment shall abide the result in all the cases.

( 3 ) PETITIONER, in W. P. (C) No. 978 of 2007, is working under Swami Bibekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research at Olatpur, Cuttack, a Govt. of India Undertaking, under the Ministry of social Justice and Employment. Similarly, petitioner, in W. P. (C) No. 31 of 2007, is a doctor working under the Orissa Mining corporation Ltd. a Govt. of Orissa Undertaking. They challenge to the Prospectus and particularly to Clause 6. 2, in which the 'in-service' candidates have been defined by eliminating the in-service candidates from public Sector Undertakings, both of the Central Government and the State Government. In W. P. (C) Nos. 2845, 2003 and 3326, all of 2007 petitioners have challenged to debarring the in-service candidates in not providing them 5% weightage marks even if they have rendered three years of service in kbk/tribal/backward areas. They also challenge to grant of 10% weightage marks benefit in favour of in-service candidates in exclusion to the direct candidates as per Clause 11. 2 read with Clause 12 of the Prospectus. In W. P. (C) Nos. 2845, 2003, 2206, 2950, 3326, 3389, 3667, 3668, 4013, 4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, 4018 and 4164, all of 2007 petitioners have complained of not holding the test and counselling for admission into 2006 P. G. (Medical) Course for the in-service candidates with the prayer to make provision for their counselling and admission separately than from the 2007 batch. In W. P. (C) No. 3805 of 2007 petitioner has complained of not providing him 10% weightage marks notwithstanding the fact that he worked as a Medical Officer on contractual basis and also subsequently on regular basis for a period over five years and six months, i. e. from 23-4-1999 to 10-3-2005. He claims for relevant benefit. In W. P. (C) No. 3544 of 2007 petitioner states that she was holding the rank at serial No. 306 of the Merit List of 2005, admission was granted up to serial No. 304 and even if serial No. 305 declined to take admission, she was not considered for counselling and admission. Accordingly she prays to adjust her in the 2007 course. In W. P. (C) No. 3596 of 2007 petitioner's contention is that he is a student belonging to physically handicapped category. That category of candidates are entitled to 3% seat reservation and thereby four seats are available to be filled up by candidates belonging to such category, but in Clause 14 of the prospectus and particularly in Clause 14. 3. 1 it has been provided that the quota for the physically handicapped in-service candidate, if not available, to be filled up by in-service candidates from general category and that provision is contrary to Section 39 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short "disabilities Act, 1995" ).

( 4 ) IN view of urgency of the matters, as projected by all the parties, and interim protection having been granted for proceeding with the counselling but not to admit any student, and that the parties to the proceeding agreed that procedure should