( 1. ) THE petitioners who are working as doctors in the dispensaries maintained under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, are challenging Rules 9. 5 b (i), (ii), (iii) and 8. 5 (b) of the Rules for Post-graduation (M. D. / M. S. Course) in clinical and Non-Clinical Disciplines in Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh, giving weightage to the Assistant Surgeons in State Medical Services and not to the e. S. I. doctors and consequentially their non-selection for doing post-graduation.

( 2. ) THE petitioners are working as doctors on the post of E. S. I. Medical officers/ Assistant Surgeons in the Employees State Insurance Services under the department of Labour, State of M. P. , having been duly appointed under section 58 of the Act read with State Insurance Service Rules. All these 5 petitioners had applied for doing post-graduation in different disciplines in 1987 quota in Medical colleges at Indore and Bhopal, Rule 9. 2 (a) provides that applications shall be invited for doing post-graduation from Assistant Surgeons serving in the State and along with necessary enclosures the applications shall be submitted to the Director of Medical Services and those serving under the Director E. S. I. , through him, showing thereby that the E. S. I. doctors have also to apply in the reserved quota of assistant Surgeons. But under Rule 9. 5 (B) certain weightages are given to the assistant Surgeons serving in the State services only. Under sub-clauses (i) and (ii)the doctors who are working in scheduled areas or rural areas not within 50 kms. from the municipal limits or 20 kms. from the notified areas will be given 10 marks for each year of service in scheduled area and 5 marks for each year of service in rural area subject to the maximum of 50 marks. Under sub-clause (iii) for each block of 20 sterilisation operations done by a, candidate will earn 5 marks subject to maximum of 100 marks. These rules were to the great prejudice of the doctors working under Employees Insurance Services. It is a well-known fact that the hospitals and dispensaries are located only in industrial and urban area attached to e. S. I. scheme. E. S. I. medical service has been constituted to discharge the statutory obligations in the State under various labour legislations including E. S. I. Act. The doctors working in E. S. I. services, due to the inherent nature and condition of their service, do not get any opportunity to work in scheduled areas or rural area and cannot obtain weightages marks provided under Rule 9. 5 B (i to iii) which is available to their counter-parts in State services. Similarly, the doctors in E. S. I. services cannot conduct sterilization operations in sufficient numbers for want of adequate number of patients and facility in their hospitals and dispensaries. One of the petitioners, petitioner No. 4 conducted a few sterilisation operations but he was informed by communication dated 15-9-1987 not to undertake sterilisation operations since his dispensary is not well-equipped for that purpose. So the E. S. I. doctors are handicapped from securing additional marks by doing service in scheduled or rural areas and by doing sterilisation operations. So the doctors working in the State services get ample opportunity to work in rural and scheduled areas and doing sterilisation operations, thereby get an unfair advantage or an edge over E. S. I. doctors, in determining comparative merit, for admission to the post-graduate courses. Although the petitioners were more meritorious than some of the assistant Surgeons who were given admission, they have been deprived of the admission because they did not get any weightage. Rule 9. 5 B (i to iii) deserves to be struck down as being discriminatory to doctors in E. S. I. services, who constitute a separate class, deserving fair and equal treatment. It is further contended that under rule 8. 5 (b) (ii) weightage of 10 marks is given for participating in inter-university event and/or for securing a