Back
2012 Supreme(Ori) 123
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
SANJU PANDA, J.
Satyabrata Sahoo & ors. : Petitioners
Vrs
State of Orissa & ors. : Opp. Parties
WP(C) No. 909, 2204 & 850 of 2012,
Decided On : 23.3.2012
M/s. B. Routray, P.K Sahoo, R.P. Dalai. K. Mohanty, S. Das, S. Jena, S.K. Samal & S.P. Nath & Ors. for Petitioners
M/s. RC. Mohanty, K.C. Swain, Miss. S. Mohanty, M/s RK Rath, Pami Rath & J. Mohanty, M/s. S.K Das & S. K Mishra. N. Mishra, M/s. R.K Mohanty, D. Varadwaj, P. Jena, S.N. Biswal. S. Mohanty & A. Mohanty, M/s. S.K Padhi, M. Padhi, A. Das, B. Panigrahi & S.S. Mohaoty & Ors. for Opp. Parties
The additional weight-age of marks provided in Clause 11.2 does not allow less meritorious students to be selected and does not encroach upon the seats available to direct candidates.
Headnote:
Prospectus - Selection of Candidates for P.G. (Medical) Courses - Clause 11.2 - [4, 6, 11, 12] - The court discussed the legality and arbitrariness of Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus, 2012, and its impact on the selection of candidates for Post Graduate (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha. The court also considered the MCI guidelines and previous court decisions related to similar issues.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus for selection of candidates for P.G. (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha, 2012, and prayed for various reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional weight-age of marks provided in Clause 11.2 does not allow less meritorious students to be selected and does not encroach upon the seats available to direct candidates. The court also rejected the plea for inclusion of a transparency clause in the Prospectus, 2012.
Issues: The legality and arbitrariness of Clause 11.2, encroachment of seats, and the inclusion of a transparency clause in the Prospectus, 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Clause 11.2 does not allow less meritorious students to be selected and does not encroach upon the seats available to direct candidates. The plea for inclusion of a transparency clause in the Prospectus, 2012 was rejected.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were disposed of with the court directing the Opp. Parties to supply photocopies of the answer sheets to the candidates and to publish the results of the Entrance Examination for Post Graduate (Medical) Course, 2012.
JUDGMENT
SANJU PANDA, J.
Since common questions & identical facts are involved in these Writ Petitions, they were heard together & are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. WP(C) No.909 of 2012
The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus for selection of candidates for P.G. (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa, 2012 (in short, "Prospectus, 2012") & praying for Issuance of a mandamus directing the Opp. Parties not to act pursuant to the said Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus, 2012 in respect of the seats meant for Direct Candidates.
WP(C) No.2204 of 2012
The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the selection of candidates for Post Graduate (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha, 2012 as illegal & contrary 10 the settled position/principle of law propounded by this Court in WP(C) No. 5778 of 2011 dated 22.3.2011.
WP(C) No.850 of 2012
The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of Opp. Parties 2 to 6 as the Chairman, the Convenor & the Members of the P.G. (Medical) Selection, 2012 as illegal & invalid in the eye of law & accordingly they have prayed for quashing of Clause 1.2 of the prospectus for selection of candidates for Post Graduate (Medical) Selection - 2012, Odisha along with Clause 11.2 in respect of direct candidates & issuance of a direction to the Opp. Parties to publish the model questions & answers in the website, allow the candidates to file objection, if any, as per Clause 10.17 of the Prospectus of last year, i.e. P. G. (Medical) Selection, 2011 & modify the setting of questions as per Clause 9.2 of the Prospectus of last year by incorporating Appendix-II.
3. In WP(C) Nos.850 of 2012, Misc. Case No.2185 of 2012 was filed by Dr. Bikas-Chandra Nanda & Dr. Nishant Nilotpala Dash for being impleaded as Opp. Parties. Said application having been allowed, they have been arrayed as Opp. Parties 7 & 8 respectively in that Writ Petition. Both the intervenors are direct candidates & are in Government service. They have not completed five years of service. They support the action of the Opp. Parties.
4. In WP(C) No.909 of 2012, twenty six number of doctors had filed Misc. Case Nos. 1990, 2541, 2542 & 2543 of 2012 to be impleaded as intervenors & those misc. cases having been allowed, they have supported the plea of the Writ Petitioners challenging Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus, 2012.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Clause 4.1 of the Prospectus, 2012 reveals the availability of seats, i.e., 121 seats for Unreserved Category, 21, 14, 5, 3 & 9 seats are for Reservation Category, i.e., ST, SC, PH, Defence & Green Card respectively. Clause 6 defines the Category of Candidates. Clause 11.2 reflects the Additional Weight age of marks to be awarded to the candidates who are in the employment in the Government of Odisha/Government of Odisha Undertaking. The additional weight-age of marks will be awarded to both Direct & In-service candidates As per Cluase-4 of the Prospectus, 2012, the total number on the basis of category wise availability of seats for P.G. (Medical) Courses in the three Government Medical Colleges of Orissa for the academic session, 2012 is 173. In the Prospectus, 2012, it is stipulated that 50% of the seats out of the State quota shall be allotted to the candidates who are in Government service & 50% seats to direct candidates. In case additional weight-age is given to the candidates both direct & in-service as per Clauses 11.2, the quota of seats reserved for the in-service candidates will encroach upon the direct candidates quota seats which will be more than 50% of the seats available &, the Opp. Parties will not reserve more than 50% of the seats for one category of candidates, i.e., In-service candidates. As such, Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus, 2012 is liable to be quashed learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that in case the additional we
