Rahul Gupta and Others vs Principal of SMS Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospital and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the office order dated 03rd August, 2015. The candidates were selected/registered with nomination of guides mentioned against their names. It is after the admission of petitioners and others in the PG Medical Courses.

A further challenge is made to the office order dated 24th June, 2015 (Annexure - 4) whereby for separate disciplines, number of students were given three years'' residential scheme on merit-cum-preference basis.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an All India Pre PG Entrance Test was conducted. The merit list was thereupon drawn followed by the admission. Since, seats for PG are bifurcated in State and All India Quota, admissions were made as per merit list of All India Entrance Test because State of Rajasthan did not conduct separate entrance test for admission in PG Course. After admission of the candidates, they were to be allocated guide, which is based on merit-cum-preference as is coming out from the order dated 24th June, 2015. It is alleged that ignoring the merit-cum-preference, the allocation of guides has been made. The non-petitioners made allocation of guides in reference to the Circular dated 12th January, 2006 whereas it was not applicable to the present case. As per the said Circular, allotment of guide is to be made in the manner given in para Nos. 2 & 3. Those candidates, who appeared in Rajasthan Pre PG Entrance Test, would be allocated guide based on merit-cum-preference on odd numbers, like 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, etc. and those, who appeared and remained successful against All India Quota, would be given even number, like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc. Accordingly to the aforesaid, first seat will go to the State Quota and second will go to All India Quota. In the case in hand, the State of Rajasthan did not conduct Pre PG Entrance Test, thus question of application of para Nos. 2 of the said Circular does not arise. The All India Entrance Test was conducted and has been applied by the State Government for filling up seats of State Quota. In the background aforesaid and as per the order dated 24th June, 2015, the guide should have been allocated based on merit-cum-preference without making bifurcation between State and All India quota. The non-petitioners have made bifurcation between State and All India quota without entrance test by the State of Rajasthan, thus allocation of guide becomes illegal.

A reference of judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Gajendra Anuragi & Ors. Vs. Principal of SMS Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospital, Jaipur & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 276/2014 decided on 28th March, 2014 has been given.

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners, submits that allocation of guide is as per the Circular issued from time to time. The State of Rajasthan did not conduct Pre PG Entrance Test but has relied on All India Pre PG Entrance Test. They made a request for preparation of separate list for state quota as per the choice of the candidates. A separate merit list was drawn for state quota on the basis of All India Pre PG Entrance Test. In view of the above, seats for state quota were filled as per the merit prepared out of All India Pre PG Entrance Test. In view of the above, two merit lists were prepared for admission in PG Courses. The State of Rajasthan did not conduct Rajasthan Pre PG Entrance Test in view of the facts given above but it does not mean that merit of state quota seats can be mixed up with All India quota seats for any purpose. In the Circular dated 12th January, 2006, a reference of Rajasthan Pre PG Entrance Test was given but subsequently, on 13th December, 2013, it was made clear that allocation of guide would be in reference to the merit list prepared for the state and All India Quota separately from National Eligibility and Entrance Test (for short "NEET"). It was at the time when NEET was conducted for admission in PG medical course throughout India. The NEET was thereafter abolished. In the present case, only one entrance test was conducted but bifurcation of seats between State and All India was made in the same manner, as was done at the time of NEET. In the background aforesaid, two separate merit lists have been taken into consideration for allocation of guides by arranging it in odd and even numbers. Odd numbers were given to the candidates of State Quota whereas even numbers were given to the candidates of All India Quota. This Court had permitted aforesaid bifurcation while delivering the judgment in the case of Dr. Gajendra Anuragi & Ors. (supra). In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, hence, it may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and scanned the matter carefully.

It is a case where after entrance test for admission in PG Courses, the petitioners were given admissions in different colleges in State of Rajasthan. They allocated the guides of the discipline, in which, they have to undergo PG Course. A challenge to the allocation of the guide has been made. It is stated to be in ignorance of the merit-cum-preference.

It is submitted that if the Circular dated 24th June, 2015 makes a reference about merit-cum-preference of the candidates, then it should have been strictly adhere to without bifurcating it in the State and All India Quota.

I have considered the submission aforesaid and find that even on the basis of All India Entrance Test, two merit lists were drawn. First merit list was for All India quota and other was for State Quota, as State of Rajasthan did not conduct Pre PG Entrance Test. Based on two merit lists, allocation of guides has been made in order of merit-cum-preference. According to the petitioners, both the lists should have been mixed up for allocation of guide.

In my opinion, it would not be permissible because the seats of State Quota is filled separately than All India Quota. No doubt, it is true that State of Rajasthan did not conduct Pre PG Entrance Test but it does not mean that even if separate list is drawn for State Quota and All India Quota out of All India Entrance Test, two different lists should be mixed up for allocation of guide. In various States, where entrance test was conducted, same method was applied for allocation of guide, as has been applied by the State of Rajasthan. In view of the above and as per the direction in the case of Dr. Gajendra Anuragi & Ors. (supra), they have allocated guides in order of merit-cum-preference from two different lists by applying it separately. The odd numbers were given for State Quota whereas even numbers were for the All India Quota. In view of the above, even if the Circular dated 12th January, 2006 could not apply to the extent of para No. 2, subsequent circular dated 13th December, 2013 would apply. The allocation can be made and has been made in the instant case by arranging merit with bifurcation in odd and even numbers for State and All India Quota respectively. In fact, Circular dated 13th December, 2013 was issued when NEET was in existence. It, however, applies even in the present case because in place of NEET, All India Entrance Test has been conducted and in absence of separate entrance examination by the State of Rajasthan, seats were filled on the basis of All India Entrance Test alone, as was the situation when NEET was conducted.

In the background aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition, hence, it is dismissed so as the stay application.