Back
High Court Of Orissa
B. K. BEHERA, G. B. PATTANAIK
CHITTA PRASAD DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 172 Of 1986
Decided On : 05/16/1986
POST GRADUATE ADMISSION - ELIGIBILITY - MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS - CUT-OFF DATE - RATIONALITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ORISSA POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION RULES, 1985 (RULE 7.6.1).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an inservice candidate, challenged the legality of Clauses 2 and 7.6.1 of the Prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Course, alleging that he was illegally excluded from consideration due to not completing one year of service by 30th June of the year of admission.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualifications as per Clause 7.6.1, as he had not completed one year of service as a Medical Officer under the Government by 30th June of the year of admission. The Court further held that the fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission was not arbitrary or irrational, as it was based on the academic year and the need for rationalization of admissions in different colleges.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner possessed the minimum qualifications as per Clause 7.6.1 of the Prospectus. 2. Whether the fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission was arbitrary or irrational.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Clause 7.6.1 of the Prospectus prescribed three different qualifications as minimum qualifications for inservice candidates, all of which were further governed by the condition that the applicant must have put in at least one year of service as a Medical Officer. The petitioner had obtained a diploma in Orthopaedics from a recognized institution, but he had not completed one year of service as a Medical Officer under the Government. Therefore, he did not possess the minimum qualifications as per Clause 7.6.1. 2. The fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission was not arbitrary or irrational, as it was based on the academic year and the need for rationalization of admissions in different colleges. The Court noted that merely because in some year the Courses begin late or for some unforeseen eventuality there is delay in beginning of a particular course, the fixing of a date cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualifications and that the fixing of the cut-off date was not arbitrary or irrational.
G. B. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER who was an applicant for admission to the Post Graduate Course pursuant to the prospectus (Annexure-1), has challenged the legality of Clause 2 and Cl. 7. 6. 1 of the Prospectus and has prayed for a direction to opposite party No. 4 to entertain the petitioner's application for admission to the 2 year Post-Graduate Course as an inservice candidate.
( 2 ) THE petitioner asserts that he completed his M. B. B. S. Course from the Utkal University as a student from the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack and thereafter completed the Rotating Internship from the said institution. The petitioner then joined a Diploma Course in Orthopaedics in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and successfully completed the same on 31-5-1984. He then joined the Government service in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Orissa and was posted in the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital with effect from 7-11-1984. After the prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Course for the year 1985-86 as per Annexure-1 was issued, he made an application on 30-11-1985 by which date he had completed one year of service, but petitioner's case was illegally taken out of consideration on the ground that he did not complete one year of service on 30-61985. The petitioner asserts that he being a diploma holder in Orthopaedics, the clause requiring one year's service to be considered for admission to the Post Graduate Course is not applicable and alternatively, it is contended that by the date of application he had completed one year of service, but yet his case was not considered on the ground that the completion of one year of service must be by 30th June of the year for which the admission is going to take place. The petitioner asserts that there is no rationale behind the date 30-6-1985 and such arbitrary action must be struck down.
( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered on account of the conditions in the Prospectus and, therefore, his case was rightly not considered. So far as the cut-off date was concerned, it was contended that there are three medical colleges within the State of Orissa and the three medical colleges are under three different Universities and necessarily, therefore, the examinations are not conducted simultaneously but on different dates. In order to bring harmony and keeping in view the academic year as defined in the Utkal University Statutes, the Government has fixed the cut-off date to be 30-6-1985, which cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioners contention on this score is devoid of force.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the submissions made b the counsel on both sides, it would be appropriate to take note of some of the clauses of the prospectus. The prospectus is a combined one for admission to R. H. S. and to Post Graduate Courses. The total number of seats is 226 out of which 113 seats are meant for R. H. S. Course and 113 seats are meant for Post Graduate Course. Under the scheme of the prospectus admission to the R. H. S. Course is made on the basis of an entrance test and these who qualify they continue in the R. H. S. for one year and then are automatically admitted to the next year of the Post Graduate Course. So far as the admission to 2 year Post-Graduate Course is concerned, the same is meant for only inservice candidates and admission is made on the basis of criteria fixed in the prospectus provided they satisfy the minimum qualifications contained in Cl. 7 and they are eligible in accordance with the principles laid down in Cl. 8. We are concerned in the present case with the admission to the 2 year Post Graduate Course of the inservice candidates. The inservice candidates are those who are in Government service. Cl. 2 of the prospectus which is relevant for our purpose is quoted hereinbelow in extenso :-"the admission will be made once in a year. The candidates are requi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
