The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the rules determining the inter se merit of candidates and the eligibility to participate in the second round of counselling, in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.

S.R. Alam, C.J.

1. In Writ Petition No. 8337/2010 the Petitioner has questioned the validity of the provisions contained in Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2010 Rules') whereas in W.P. No. 6321/2010 the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. However, in Writ Petition No. 9619/2010 though the validity of the rules has not been specifically challenged but the point in issue of this petition is interlinked with the controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 8337/2010 and, therefore, this Court vide order dated 17.8.2010 directed the petition to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 8337/2010. This is how all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In Writ Petition No. 8337/2010 the Petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant admission in M.S. Gynaecology to the Petitioner against the seat which is kept vacant vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed by Indore Bench of this Court. The Petitioner has also sought a direction to Respondents No. 1 to 4 to allow her to participate in the second round of counselling. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that Petitioner has obtained M.B.B.S. degree with four gold medals. She as well as Respondent No. 5 appeared in Pre P.G. Test, 2010, conducted by the Respondent No. 2 in which the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 got equal marks i.e. 151 out of 200. It is relevant to mention here that in Part-B of the examination also the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 secured equal marks. Though the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 secured equal marks, yet the Respondent No. 5 was placed at Sr. No. 58 in the merit list, whereas the Petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 61 in the merit list on the sole ground that Respondent No. 5 is older in age. One Dr. Neha Sharma, who had also appeared in Pre P.G. test, filed a writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 3565/2010. In the said writ petition Indore Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 06.4.2010 directed that one seat in M.S. Gynaecology shall be kept vacant till next date of hearing. The Respondent No. 5 who had participated in Pre. P.G. counselling could not get the seat in M.S. Gynaecology, therefore, she opted for a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for short 'DGO') in M.P. quota and obtained admission. She had also appeared in All India Entrance Examination. In All India quota seats also she could secure a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology. Thus, the Respondent No. 5 obtained seat in DGO in M.P. quota as well as in All India quota. The Respondent No. 5 after getting admission in diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics submitted her resignation from the seat in DGO of M.P. quota. However, by suppressing the aforesaid fact she filed a writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 6092/2010 in which a relief was claimed that she be permitted to appear in the second round of counselling.

3. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma and Respondent No. 5 came up for hearing before Indore Bench of this Court on 20.5.2010. The writ petition preferred by Dr. Neha Sharma was dismissed whereas the writ petition preferred by Respondent No. 5, Dr. Ritu Agrawal, was disposed of with a direction to permit her to appear in second round of counselling for a seat in M.S. Gynaecology. It is averred that Respondent No. 5 was not entitled to appear in second round of counselling. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the Petitioner of W.P. No. 8337/2010 has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) of the 2010 Rules which provides that if two candidates secure equal marks even in Part B of the question paper, the candidate older in age will be placed higher in inter se merit of such candidates. She also challenged the validity of Rule