IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
INDRAJIT MAHANTY & D.P. CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Dr. Satyabrata Kanungo - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.6923 of 2015
Decided On : 31-03-2016
When the State Government is facing hardship to recruit doctors due to paucity of number of doctors, presence of such improper and unreasonable Clauses having being kept inconsistently on different years can be said to have violated Article 14 of the Constitution being unreasonable, improper and against the public policy. If there would be flexibility in the professional guideline, the candidates will be more encouraged to get the different disciplines and more doctors would be available to prosecute the studies. It is true that the State has to also look after the hardship for the State to fill up the seat vacated by the candidates in the midst of the session but that can be compensated by payment of reasonable cost or compensation, as the case may be.
2. WRIT - Writ is the nature of the suit in a civil matter and the counter is equivalent to the written statement in the suit.
(Para-14)
3. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 8 Rule 5 (1) - Where there is no specific denial by the opposite parties to the fact pleaded by the petitioner it shall be taken to be admitted.
(Para-14)
JUDGMENT :
D.P. Choudhury, J.
Challenge is made to Clauses I (6) & F (5) enshrined under the Guidelines for counseling and admission of candidates for Post Graduate (Medical) courses in the Medical Colleges of Odisha for the academic sessions 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, respectively (hereinafter called Guideline 2014-2015 and Guideline 2015-2016), as the same are ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by debarring the petitioner to be considered for selection in the next three academic sessions of P.G. course as well as ineligible to participate for P.G. (Medical) counseling.
FACTS
2. The unshorn details of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a doctor by profession having completed MBBS from V.S.S. Medical College, Burla in the year 2006. Thereafter the petitioner joined at P.H.C. (N), Kodabhata, Jharigaon Block, Nabarangpur as Medical Officer and worked till 31.3.2015 having duration of service for 1862 days.
3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner applied for P.G. Medical Entrance Examination (as an in-service candidate) for the period from 2014-2015 and he got selected in fourth counseling in the subject Radiotherapy. He took admission on 26.6.2014 at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack but later on he did not find himself comfortable to the subject for which he surrendered the seat in Radiotherapy stream on 8.7.2014 with the hope that he will get another subject which will be more comfortable for him to render service to the patients. It is stated that on 10.7.2014 fifth round of counseling for the academic year 2014-2015 was held but the seat left by the petitioner remained unfilled.
4. The petitioner again applied for the P.G. Medical Course for the academic session 2015-2016 and got him selected having AIPGEMEE rank of 13911 as in-service candidate. In in-service category in the State his rank became reflected as Sl. No.40. While he waited for the counseling, on 24.3.2015 a notice was served on him stating that he is ineligible to participate in the counseling during 2014-2015 as he being admitted to Radiotherapy course during 201415 did not join at the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital.
5. It is alleged, inter alia, that petitioner being meritorious and having secured the rank 40 in the in-service category failed to get qualified for counseling in the P.G. Medical course for next three years due to Clause-I (6) and F (5) to the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, respectively, in their respective Guidelines. He came to know that Clause F (5) of the Guideline for the year 2015-2016 read with Clause K (2) of the same Guideline is very harsh for the meritorious students who had left the course after being offered, is too onerous and harsh, essentially challenge those clauses having narrated the same as ultra vires being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is averred by the petitioner that the Clause like I (6) & F (5) read with Clause K(2) respectively as enshrined in the Guidelines for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 for State of Orissa not only debar the students for prosecuting the P.G. course for a period of three years but also penalize the students having directed to collect the stipend received by them and also to recover Rs.1 lakh from their possession, in default of payment such money, the original certificates ought to be retained by the authorities without being disbursed to the concerned candidate. There is no such provision maintained in other States like Karnataka, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and States like West Bengal and Uttaranchal. Thus, the petitioner alleged that such conditions being harsh and creating hardship on the petitioner are detrimental to the interest of meritorious students in the medical service which is undoubtedly cream service to the people at large. Be that as it may, the petitioner prayed to declare Clause-I (6) and F (5) in the Guidelines for counseling and admission of can
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.