AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Is the action of the respondent-Institute in restricting admission to the M.Sc. Medical Technology Courses to Only such candidates as are regular employees of the Government Department/Medical College for the last at least three years and are sponsored/deputed by the employer, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed.
On April 6, 1996, the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, issued an advertisement inviting applications for admission to various courses commencing from July 1, 1996. One of these courses was for the award of degree of M.Sc. in Speech and Hearing. The admission to this course was being made for the first time. The Institute had also issued a common Information Brochure for admission to the M.Sc. Medical Technology Courses for the July, 1996 Session. In this Brochure, it was inter alia provided that "the admission to M.Sc. Medical Technology Courses in different subjects is restricted to sponsored/deputed candidates only and the candidates who are regular employees of the Government Department/Medical College for the last at least 3 years." It was also provided that the candidate shall have to furnish a certificate from the employer to the effect that he/ she is a permanent or regular employee of the deputing/ sponsoring authority for the last at least three years." The candidates could be sponsored or deputed only by -- (a) Central Govt. department or Institutions; (b) State Government Departments/ Institutions; (c) Autonomous Bodies of the Central or State Government; (d) Public Sector Undertakings; (e) Medical Colleges affiliated to a University and recognised by the Medical Council of India. The candidates "who have passed the B.Sc. (Audiology and Speech therapy) degree or its equivalent from the recognised University or Institute with a minimum of 50% marks" were eligible to apply for the courses. The selection of the candidates was to be made on the basis of a theory paper containing 100 multiple choice questions.
The Institute also conducts a degree course of B.Sc. (Audiology and Speech therapy). The petitioners were admitted to this degree course after passing the 10 + 2 examination. Both of them had passed the B.Sc. examination in the year 1995. They fulfilled the academic qualifications prescribed by the Institute for admission to the Post-Graduate Course. However, they have been rendered ineligible for admission to the Post-Graduate Course only on account of the fact that all the seats are reserved for the sponsored/deputed candidates who are regular employees of a department of the Government or a Medical College. The petitioners allege that the action of the Institute in reserving all the seats for the category of employees of the Government/Medical Colleges is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. They pray that the action of the Institute in restricting the admission to sponsored/deputed candidates be quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider them for admission to the Post-Graduate Course.
The respondent-Institute contests the claim of the petitioners. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Director. It has been stated that the P.G.I. was the first Institution in India to start B.Sc. Technology Courses in Laboratory and Radiological Sciences in the year 1967. On the analogy of these courses, the B.Sc. Audiology and Speech Therapy course was started during the late 1970''s. The admission to these courses is made on merit on all India basis through an entrance examination. The selected candidates are granted stipends and in consideration thereof, they execute service bonds to serve the PGI, Chandigarh/Government for a period of three years. After graduation, the candidates are eligible for appointment to the posts of Laboratory Technician/Technician in Radiological Sciences and Audiologists/Speech Therapists in Government/Semi-Government Hospitals/ Teaching Institutions. Those who cannot get Government jobs join private hospitals. After starting the degree courses, in Medical Technology, the Institute needed teachers. Accordingly, the Post-Graduate viz. M.Sc. Medical Technology courses were started so as "to train specialists and not general purpose technicians." Since the basic purpose of starting M.Sc. courses was to have teachers, admission to M.Sc. Medical Technology courses was restricted to in-service candidates of PGI, Chandigarh only. Later on, when B.Sc. Technology courses were started by some other Institutions in the country, the admission to "M.Sc. Medical Technology courses was extended to deputed/sponsored candidates by other Govt./Semi-Government Hospitals/ Institutions in the country." During this year, the PGI has started M.Sc. (Speech and Hearing) course. The admission to this course "is also restricted to sponsored/ deputed candidates only. Since the basic purpose of conducting M.Sc. Medical Technology courses was to have teachers for the B.Sc. Medical Technology courses, with the same consideration, M.Sc. (Speech and Hearing) course has been started." It has also been averred that the B.Sc. students had made a demand during the year 1991-92 that admission to M.Sc. courses should also be made from open market. The matter was considered by the Academic Committee in the meeting held on March 9, 1992. It was pointed out that "since the basic requirement for general purpose technician was B.Sc. Medical Technology degree, it would not be proper to accept candidates from the open market or doing private practice for M.Sc. Medical Technology courses and investment should be made on deputed/sponsored candidates only whose services would be available to the sponsoring/deputing authorities after the candidates successfully complete that M.Sc. courses. Throwing open of these courses to candidates from the open market will not be in public interest." On this basis, the respondents claim that their action is legal and valid and the writ petition be dismissed.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
Mr. Ahlawat, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondent-Institute in reserving alt the seats for the in-service/sponsored candidates is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mr. Mehra, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the course is being conducted with the object of having teachers for the B.Sc. Medical Technology course. Consequently, the admission has been confined to the persons who are already in regular service.
The PGI is an Institute of national importance. It has been established with the object of developing patterns of teaching in Under-Graduate and Post-Graduate Medical Education. The Institute can set up Institutions for the training of different types of Health Workers including Medical Technicians of various kinds. Normally, it should be open to an Institution to not only lay down the minimum conditions of eligibility but even the sources from which admission has to be made. However, whenever an Institution which is an instrumentality of the State introduces a classification, it has to meet the test of reasonableness. It cannot be arbitrary or unfair.
What is the position in the present case? The declared object of the Institution in restricting the admission to the sponsored candidates who have been in regular service of the Central, State Government/ Governments or Medical Colleges for at least three years is to train persons for teaching the B.Sc. students. As already noticed, it has been specifically pleaded by the Institute that "the basic purpose of conducting M.Sc. Medical Technology courses was to have teachers for the B.Sc. Medical Technology course. With the same consideration M.Sc. (Speech and Hearing) course has been started. It is relevant to submit that M.Sc. courses are aimed at specialisation for the specific purpose of teaching and training of graduate students and the same are not meant for general purpose for which B.Sc. degree in the subject is sufficient qualification." Therefore, the object of the Institute clearly is to select candidates who can be imparted higher training and education so as to be able to teach the degree classes. For this purpose, the Institute '' should select the best candidates available in the country. There is no presumption that a person who is working in a department of the Government or in an affiliated medical college is the only suitable person for being trained to teach. A person who has just graduated or who is working in a private organisation/institution may be very good or even better than the candidates who are working in a department of the Government. The Government Institutions do not necessarily attract the best talent. The Government servants cannot claim to be the best brains in the country. The private enterprise today seems to recognise merit and attracts competent young men. The classification in the present case is based solely on employment with the Government and the private institutions. A person working in a small rural dispensary is eligible. However, another person who is working in a highly modernised private hospital is not eligible. This classification is by itself unreasonable. In any event, it has no rational relationship with the object of selecting the best students for admission to the Post-Graduate courses. It cannot, thus, be sustained.
Mr. Nehra, counsel for the respondents contended that the Institute had the right to choose the source. He also referred to the decisions of this Court in Dr. Pankaj Aggarwal v. State of Haryana 1995 (4) RSJ 46 and Meenal Sharma v. State of Haryana 1995 (1) RSJ 464. These decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts. In Dr. Pankaj Aggarwal''s case, the private candidates were not totally excluded from consideration for admission to the course. Similarly, in Meenal Sharma''s case, the primary question that fell for consideration was whether the action of the State of Haryana in laying down that a candidate who had studied from the 10th to the 12th class in Haryana alone would be eligible for admission to the MBBS course was legal. There is no quarrel with the proposition enunciated in these cases. However, on account of the factual disparity, these precedents are of no use to the respondents. Still further, provisions akin to that in the present case have been Considered by different Courts. In S. Santhosh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , the provision regarding reservation of all the seats in a Super Speciality for the in-service candidates was held to be illegal with the following observations;--
"The monopoly showered on in-service candidates only relating to admission to super specialities course under the guise of toning up the efficiency of medical services in the Government hospital excluding totally the candidates possessing primary qualifications of M.S. and M.D. degrees is totally unsustainable. The object of providing super efficient service can be achieved by selecting the cream of the candidates out of service personnel and other candidates by screening all of them through entrance test and filtering the candidates in the order of merit. It cannot be postulated that in-service candidates alone are endowed with efficiency and medical experience and the purported devaluation of the merit of other candidates is devoid of rational approach. Having explicitly indicated the primary qualification of M.D. or M.S. in Rule 5 all candidates possessing such, qualifications should have been permitted to apply and compete with others."
Similarly, in Dr. B.N. Vijayanarasimha Vs. State of Karnataka and others, , it was held as under:--
"Where a notification was issued by the authorities purporting to exercise power under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules of (1983), notifying the seats for admission from the in-service candidates only in the service of the State Government thus earmarking all the seats of Super Speciality courses to in-service candidates only for 1988-89, the notification was invalid being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The exclusion of candidates who do not belong to in-service category and allotment of seats only to candidates belonging to in-service category would be impermissible."
Still further, the Apex Court in Deepak Sibal Vs. Punjab University and Another, held as under (Para 20):
"In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of Government/Semi-Government Institutions etc. by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of Three Year LL.B. Degree Course to the exclusion of all other employees is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not sub-serve any fair and logical objective."
The power to identify sources does not entitle the Institute to act arbitrarily or to ignore meritorious candidates Admittedly, the admission has to be made on the basis of merit after an entrance test. All eligible candidates should be permitted to compete. The best persons should be selected. The action of the Institute in reserving all the seats for persons working in Government departments or affiliated medical colleges is wholly arbitrary and cannot, thus, be sustained. At best the respondents can ask the candidates to give an undertaking or execute a bond to serve as teachers if the job is offered to them on qualifying the examination. However, the action of the respondents in excluding the petitioners from consideration cannot be sustained. Since the course has already commenced, it does not appear to be fair to direct that they should be admitted this year. The respondents are directed to consider their claim for admission in the next Session.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.