ORDER (Oral)

Paul, J. -- 1. In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are ‘in-service candidates’. It is also not in dispute that being ‘in-service candidates’ petitioners have a separate source of entry on 30% seats in Post Graduate Medical Courses.

2. The process of admission in the Post Graduate Courses are governed by statutory Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (Admission Rules) made under Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik (Prevesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (Adhiniyam). The petitioners/in-service candidates in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution have prayed that seats falling under 30% reserved compartment earmarked for ‘in-service candidates’ the unfilled seats of SC/ST/OBC/EWS category cannot be converted/shifted to the pool of open/direct category till they are first offered to general/unreserved category candidates within the same pool/compartment of ‘in-service candidates’ by exhausting the list in view of combined reading of rule 4 and rule 14 of the Admission Rules.

Petitioners’ contentions :-

3. Shri Siddharth Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that W.P. No.5668/2022, 5940/2022 and 6229/2022 are exactly similar matters. In these petitions, petitioners are general category candidates and their claim is that if reserved category posts in their pool/compartment are not filled up, same should go down to the petitioners in the same compartment. W.P. Nos.6740/2022 and 6742/2022 are little different matters submits Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate because petitioners of these petitions became eligible only in mop-up round. If unfilled seats of same pool are not transferred to open/direct category, the petitioners of these petitions may also get seats of their entitlement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced three fold submissions. Firstly, it is argued that ‘in-service candidates’ have a separate source of entry. As per Rule 4 and 14 of the Admission Rules, the unfilled seats of reserved category in-service compartment cannot be shifted to open/direct category unless the requirement of Rule 4 and 14 (2) of the Admission Rules is satisfied. Intermingling of seats between two compartments is impermissible. Secondly, in absence of any express enabling provision, the action of respondents in shifting the seats of one compartment (in-service category to another namely open/direct category) is bad-in-law. Thirdly, the Admission Rules must be given purposive interpretation. It is a beneficent provision for in-service candidates and therefore, intention of law makers cannot be ignored. It cannot be forgotten that the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another [(2021) 6 SCC 568] recognized in-service category as a separate source of entry. In view of K. Duraisamy and Another v. State of T.N. and others [(2001) 2 SCC 538], State of M.P. and Ors v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors [(2003) 7 SCC 83], Satyabrata Sahoo And others v. State of Orissa and other [2012 (8) SCC 203] and Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Sunita Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors [2001 (2) MPLJ 524], the exclusivity of ‘in-service candidates’ must be recognized and respected. The ‘in-service candidates’ are obliged to serve in rural and difficult areas for 5 years whereas open/direct candidates are required to serve in such area only for a period of one year. By placing reliance on a chart supplied to the Court Shri Siddharth Gupta learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 28 doctors of direct/open category have been benefited because of shifting of unfilled seats of reserve categories of in-service category to direct/open category. This will deprive the State from the services of 28 in-service category doctors in rural and difficult areas