( 1. ) BOTH these writ petitions challenge the vires of clauses (e) and (I) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules for selection of candidates for appointment as House officers in the Medical Colleges which came into force with effect from 1-1-1984 and as such, are being decided by a common order.

( 2. ) THE petitioners of these two writ petitions, after passing their M. B. B. S. Examination and completing the internship, applied for appointment as House Officers, in the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, which has been denied to them. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in regard to the validity of sub-rules. (e) and (f) of Rule 8 aforesaid, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the said Rules at this stage. A copy of the Rules has been attached as Annexure R-4 to the return filed on behalf of the respondents. Rule 6 reads as under :

"selection shall be made once in a year strictly on the basis of merit The polled merit list of all batches of candidates who have completed, or shall complete internship in the same calendar year, would be prepared by Dean concerned and notified on the college notice board. Any objections or representations received within ten days shall be considered by the Dean in consultation with the college and hospital council and corrections, if any, made in the list. The final list would be notified. No objection Would be entertained after this final notification. "

Sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8 are as follows :-

"(e ). From the above aggregate, deduct 15% of minimum pass marks in each subject for each extra attempt. (f ). Non-appearance in an examination would count as an extra attempt in each of the subjects of the examination. However, a candidate who is not eligible to appear in the 1st M. B. B. S. examination because of being admitted late in the first year, will be exempted from this provision by special order of the Dean. "

( 3. ) THE case of the petitioners is that when the provisional merit list was prepared as contemplated by Rule 6, their names were shown much above in the list It, however, appears that a representation was made by some students on the basis of which, relying on sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, the names of the petitioners were placed down below in the final list with the result that the petitioners could not get appointments as House officers. It is in these circumstances that these petitions have been instituted challenging the validity of sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8.

( 4. ) COUNSEL for the petitioners urged that there was sufficient cause for each of the petitioners for not appearing in the main examination and consequently from the mere fact that they could not, for reasons beyond their control, appear in the main examination, markkas contemplated by sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, could not be deducted from their aggregate marks. According to the counsel for the petitioners, since sub-rules (e) and (f) contemplate that even if there was sufficient cause for non-appearance in the main examination, marks would still be deducted, these sub-rules are arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. According to him, these sub-rules do not satisfy the test of reasonableness inasmuch as no reasonable person properly instructed in law, could come to the conclusion that even if non-appearance in the main examination was for sufficient cause beyond the control of the student, marks should yet be deducted.

( 5. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kulshreshtha, Govt. Advocate, we are of the opinion that so far as sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 is concerned, it does not suffier from any vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. This sub-rule contemplates extra attempt. This term apparently means that the marks on the basis of which the merit list is being prepared, were obtained in a subsequent attempt. If one candidate gets good marks in the very