The cut-off date for eligibility to apply for admission to postgraduate medical courses must be reasonable and germane to the relevant facts and circumstances prevailing during the year in question.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, medical graduates, intending to join postgraduate courses in different specialities in the Government Medical Colleges in the State during the year 1986-87, filed this writ petition praying to quash Cls. 2, 6, 4, 5 and 7. 2 of the prospectus issued by the State Govt. and for further direction to the authorities to accept their applications and to permit them to sit at the entrance examination.

( 2 ) THE essence of the grievance of the petitioners was that the aforementioned clauses in the prospectus wherein the applicants were required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by 30th June of the year of admission was fixed arbitrarily and since the petitioners could not fulfil the said requirements due to reasons completely beyond their control, they were deprived of the opportunity to appear at the entrance examination for selection for admission to post-graduate courses.

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the case may be shortly stated thus : the final M. B. B. S. Examination, 1985, which was to be held in April of that year, was held in the month of August. The petitioners appeared in the said Examination. The result were published in November, 1985 immediately whereafter the petitioners joined the course of Compulsory Rotating Housemanship. The period of housemanship was one year. It appears from the prospectus for the year 1986-87 that it was approved by the State Govt. in the Department of Health and Family Welfare on 8-8-86 and was issued in October, 1986. Therefore, the statement contained in Cl. 2 of the prospectus that the academic session commenced from July and that the candidates were required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by the 30th June of the year of admission, were apparently incorrect. In Cl. 6. 4. 5 of the prospectus it was stated that those who had completed compulsory rotating housemanship or five years of service by the 30th June of the year of admission should furnish a certificate from the competent authority evidencing that fact and in Cl. 7. 2 that the candidate must have satisfactorily completed the Compulsory - Rotating Internship/housemanship training in a hospital recognised for this purpose by the 30th June of the year of admission. These requirements, according to the petitioners, were impossible to be fulfilled by them and all other medical graduates of the year 1985. It was the contention of the petitioners that arbitrary fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission prejudicially affected their career and future life. On account of the artificial cut-off date they were unnecessarily made to lose more than a year before getting a chance to get admission into the post-graduate courses and higher specialities. It was the further case of the petitioners that during the last three to four years the academic session for these courses never commenced before October and November of the year in question. Therefore, fixing 30th June as the cut-off date on the assumption that the academic session commenced from July was done without due application of the mind by the authority concerned and hence arbitrary.

( 4 ) THE opp. parties, that is, the State Govt. in its Health Department, Director of Medical Education and Training, Orissa, and the Principals of the three Medical Colleges in the State, while trying to justify the cut-off date, took the stand, inter alia, that the date was fixed taking into consideration the commencement of the academic sessions under the Statutes of the three Universities, Utkal University, Berhampur University and Sambalpur University to which the medical colleges are affiliated. Since the exact date when each of the Universities would hold the M. B. B. S. Examination could not be ascertained by the opposite parties, the cut-off date had to be fixed as aforesaid. The opp. parties have not denied the allegation that fixing the date made it impossible for the petitioners and the other c