IN Links/DMECounselling... · 2020. 5. 19. · Pravesh Niyam 2018. The said (Sub Clause 5) of...
Transcript of IN Links/DMECounselling... · 2020. 5. 19. · Pravesh Niyam 2018. The said (Sub Clause 5) of...
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHBENCH AT GWALIOR
/202°W.P. NDr. Saurabh Dhakad, Aged
about 29 years, S/o Shri
Narayan Sjngh Dhakad, R/o
Village Salon B, Tehsil Bhandeo
District Datia (MR.)
Dr. Vijay Raghuwanshi, Aged
about 29 years, S/o Shri
Ranveer Raghuwanshi, R/o
Dungashra, Tehsil Naisarai, District Ashoknagar (M.P.)
1.PETITIONER :
2(00
hresMut1
2.
Versus
The State of M.P. through
Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Technical Education, Skill and
Training, Mantralaya, Vallabh
Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.)
RESPONDENT: 1.
The Principal Secretary, Govt, of
M.P., Department of . Medical
Education, Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal (M.P.)
2.
-
3. The Director of Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh, 6th
Floor, Satpuda Bhawan Bhopal
(M.P.)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Declaration :
Copies as required by Rule 25 of the Chapter X of the
High Court of M.P. Rule 2008 have been served upon
on date .03.2020.A.G. Office at time
MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
The Humble petitioner submits this petition as under:
(1) PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST
WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE:
. (1) : Date of Order:
Decision etc:
(2) Passed in (Case or File Number)
-
y
(3) Passed by (Name and designation of the Court,
Authority, Tribunal etc.):
(4) Subject-matter in brief:
The present petition is filed challenging the
vires of (Sub Clause 5) of Clause 3 of Schedule 1
under Rule 2 (m) of M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha
Pravesh Niyam 2018. The said (Sub Clause 5) of
Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the aforesaid rules of
2018 is un-constitutional being in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India hence deserves to be
struck down.
The aforesaid rule has been published in the
notification dated 09.03.2018 according to which
domicile based reservation is prescribed and at theA r
'/Vi same time the domicile condition has been relaxed/A,
in respect of institutional candidates. Thus, thev;impugned eligibility clause grants two way
reservation i.e. first to the domicile of the State of .
M.P. and another institutional basis. The same is
prejudicial to the interest of petitioners and being in
-
contravention to Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and is liable to be struck down. It is settled
law that there cannot be any domicile based
reservation, contrary to the merit criteria and,
therefore, the said eligibility clause is
unconstitutional.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P. (c)
No.1338/2019 has declared the similar rule to be
unconstitutional. The High Court of Allahabad has
also taken the same view. Copy of the Rules of
2018 is enclosed and marked as Annexure P/1.
(2) A DECLARATION THAT NO PROCEEDING ON
THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED IN ANY COURT,"v . A
AUTHORITY OR TRIBUNAL. IF INSTITUTED,••/. THE STATUS OR RESULT THEREOF, ALONGA/
WITH COPY OF THE ORDER:
The petitioner declares that no proceeding on the
same subject matter has been previously instituted
-
*
(3) DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED :
The petitioner declares that he has availed all
statutory and other remedies.
(4) DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE PETITION AND
EXPLANATION THEREFOR:
There is no delay in filing the present petition.
(5) FACTS OF THE CASE :
The facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under:
5.1 That, all the petitioners are eligible for admission in
post graduate courses of Medical Science (MS/MD)..»
% ■ They have obtained their MBBS degree from the/
institute located in the State of M.P. Copy of their
certificates are enclosed and marked as Annexure
P/2.
5.2 That, for. the purpose of granting admission, in the
PG Medical courses, according to the MCI
regulations, the student has to pass Ail India
-
0 •
Common NEET Examination. It is stated that all the
petitioners have passed the aforesaid All India
Common NEET Examination with 50% qualifying
marks and accordingly they are eligible to take
admission in the academic session 2020-21. Copy of
the NEET score card is enclosed and marked as
Annexure P/3.
5.3 That, the State of M.P. has formulated the rules for
the purpose of granting admission in the PG Medical
courses and such rules have been notified in the
gazette dated 09.03.2018.
That, according to the aforesaid rules of 2018, 50%KT9 )•
.QkJix v*sih
seats are reserved for M.P. domicile candidates
1 which have been defined under (Sub Clause 5) of
Clause 3 of Schedule 1 under rule 2 (m). But
however, under the aforesaid rules, the respondent
State has prescribed the domicile reservation which
is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Once the respondents have decided to grant
admission based upon All India Common NEET
KP)^Y
-
I
Examination, wherein any eligible qualified student
can appear from through the country, the
respondents cannot provide for 50% domicile
reservation to the candidates for the State of M.P.
though the petitioners are domicile of the State of
M.P but however, on the one hand the respondents
are providing domicile based reservation and at the
same time they are relaxing the condition to the
institutional candidates. Thus, due to double
application of reservation rules, the petitioners'
rights are in jeopardy and have been affected
adversely.
5.5 That, the said rules framed vide impugned
notification, elaborates the various situations when
one can be said to be a bonafide resident of M.P.,rP'.\u \ the petitioners are being aggrieved by the decision+■nj?j lof the responded No.l, State of M.P. by makingt
those students who have pursued MBBS from
colleges outside the State of M.P. as eligible for the
State quota seats of M.P., provided that they are
bonafide residents of the State of M.P., that is only
-
4
Medical/DentalGovernment and Private
Colleges/Institutions/State University and PG
Diploma Courses etc. on the basis of merit fist
prepared as per Clauses (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of
the Eligibility for Admission as per the schedule
detailed in the Uttar Pradesh Counseling Brochure.
49. Before parting with the case, I wish to
appreciate the assistance given by the learned
counsel for the parties appearing in this case, who
have been able to complete the pleadings and put
forth their contentions in the shortest span of time,
looking to the urgency in the matter and also the
concern of the Court with regard to the fact that the
ongoing counseling should not be disturbed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
Copy of the said judgment is enclosed and
marked as Annexure P/4,
5.7 That, similar question arose, in the State of
Chhattisgarh and the Hon'bie High Court,of Bilaspur
-
4
on the basis of their being a resident or domicile of
M.P.
5.6 That, in the State of U.P., the identical eligibility
condition was placed in the rules to which vires was
challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad and while High Court of Aliahabad relying
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India reported
in 1984 (3) SCC 654, in para 48 to 50 has held as
under:
"48. The result after following the above judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that the Clause 3
(Kha) of the Government Order dated 09/03/2019
■ and Clause 2 of the eligibility criteria as published in
the Uttar Pradesh counseling brochure issued by
U
i +
respondent number 2 is quashed; and the parties
are at liberty to proceed with the counseling of the
candidates selected through NEET PG 2019 for
admission to the State quota of seat of
Postgraduate MD/MS/MDS courses in various
-
! IA_^> L ItA-fi'ST/t fj'
!c
-
4
violative of the Constitutional rights of the
petitioners. The same is discriminatory.
5.10 That, for the reasons aforesaid, the present petition
is filed inter alia on the following grounds:
(6) GROUNDSURGED:
That, Because the Respondents by lay down the6.1
Eligibility Criteria providing for reservation for the
bona fide residents and domicile of Madhya Pradesh
in Rule 15, of the Rules framed vide the impugned
notification have violated the law as laid down and
directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984
3 SCC 654) where in it has been held that,jf^so far
as admissions to post graduate courses, such as
• >.
M.S/M.D. and the like are concerned, it would be
eminently desirable not to provide for any
reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference. But having
regard to broad considerations of equality of
opportunity and institutional continuity in education
-
■£/
which has its own importance and value, it is
directed that though residence requirement within
the State shall not be ground for reservation in
admissions to post- graduate courses, a certain
percentage of seats may in the present
circumstances, be reserved on the basis of
institutional preference in the sense that a student
who has passed M.B.B.S, courses from a medical
college or university may be given preference for
admission to the post-graduate course in the same
medical college or university/'t-VS IV- VO
A 6.2 That, because the very intention of the Rules
♦ framed vide the impugned notification is to
determine the procedure for catering for the
' admission to the 50% seats reserved under the
state quota, which was provided to cater to the
requirement of providing institutional preference,i
however in the garb of providing for the institutional
preference the Respondent State of Madhya
Pradesh have instead provided for reservation of
seats for those who are domicile or bona fide
-
\J
residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh, in a clear
act of colorable legislation.
6.3 That, the (Sub Clause 5) of Clause 3 of Schedule 1
of the rules of 2018 is constitutional because the
domicile based reservation, is impressible in
view of provisions contained under article 14 of the
Constitution of India because our constitution do
not recognize the domicile based reservation as the
same affects the opportunity to get admission and
employment vested under Article 14 of the Citizens
of India,. Due to this reason also the impugned
(Sub Clause 5) of Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the
rules of 2018 is ultra-vires to the constitution and,, /. ;u.
therefore, same deserves to be struck down./
•> >/ ■
"*■" 6.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh,
though has held the said condition to be ultra-vires
but however due to commencement of the
v/-
academic session, refrain from granting the relief as
prayed in the petition. To avoid such a situation, the
petitioners prayed that the petitions may be taken
-
V
up for hearing at an earliest in order to provide
justice to the petitioners, to secure their
constitutional rights.
6.5 That, the other grounds shall be urged during the
course of arguments.
(7) RELIEF PRAYED FOR:
It is therefore prayed that this petition may kindly
be allowed by issuing appropriate writ or direction
by exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Following relief be directed to
be ordered in favour of the petitioner.
(i) That, the (Sub Clause 5) of Clause 3 of Schedule
1 under Rule 2 (m) of the M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha
Pravesh Niyam 2018 conatined in Annexure P/1,
may be stuck down and accordingly the
respondents may be directed to allot the 50%
State quota seats in PG Medical courses to such
students who have secured their MBBS degree
from the State of M.P. irrespective from of their
-
f
domicile. The domicile based reservation
provided under the aforesaid rule be held to be3
unconstitional and be struck down.
(ii)That/ other relief which is just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case may also be
granted.
(8) INTERIM ORDER/WRIT, IF PRAYED FOR:
In the meantime, looking towards the facts and
circumstances of the case as have been brought on
record and mainly considering the judgment given
by Hon'ble High Curt of Allahabad as well as by
Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, the petitioners
most humbly pray that the effect and operation of
r (Sub Clause 5) of Clause 3 of Schedule 1 under Rule
' 2 (m) of the M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam
ri■ >'ft■V /
2018, which provides for domicile based
reservation, be directed to remain^suspended and
the effect and operation of said eligibility condition
be stayed during pendency of this petition and a
further direction may also be issued to the
-
V
respondents to conduct the counseling for PG
Medical courses, based upon M.P. institutional
reservation or in alternative to stay the counseling
and allotment of the seats. Copy of the tentative
schedule is also enclosed and marked as Annexure
P/7.
(9) DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BUT NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER:
(10) CAVEAT :
No notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
Humble petitionersDate:-11.03.2020
Through CounselGwalior:"t
(M.P.S. Raghuvanshi)*
N-'V- '(D.S. KBgnuvans
Advocates
-
>1?
WP.6429.2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.6429.2020
(Dr. Saurabh Dhakad & Anr. Vs. State of 1VT.P. & Ors )
Gwalior Dt. 28.04.2020
Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Saurabh Dhakad in person.
Shri Purushaindra ICaurav, learned Advocate General, for the
respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh.
All the parties have been heard through medium of Video
Conferencing.
This Court on the last occasion i.e. 16.03.2020 had enquired
from the State as to whether the decisions rendered by the;■
Allahabad High Court and Chhasttisgarh High Court (Annexures
P-4 and P-5) attained finality or are under challenge before the ■
higher forum.
Shri Kaurav, learned Advocate General, on being asked about
the aforesaid, submits that since he has received the file and
instructions only a short while ago, he wants further time to answer
the query raised by this Court on 16.03.2020.
The petitioner who appears in person submits that next round
of counselling is scheduled to start from 04lh of May, 2020 and thus
expresses urgency.
Accordingly, State is granted further time to seek instructions
as regards order dated 16.03.2020.
-
2 WP.6429.2020
The matter stands adjourned with liberty'to the petitioners to
pray before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for early hearing of the matter.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge
pd
PAWAN^C— DHARK illr'
■“S~AR
-
«*-?
4
WP.6429.2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.6429.2020
(Dr. Saurabh Dhakad & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors )
Gwalior Dt. 28.04.2020
Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Saurabh Dhakad in person.
Shri Pumshaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General, for the
respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh.
All the parties have been heard through medium of Video
Conferencing.
This Court on the last occasion i.e. 16.03.2020 had enquired
from the State as to whether the decisions rendered by the
Allahabad High Court and Chhasttisgarh High Court (Annexures
P-4 and P-5) attained finality or are under challenge before the
higher forum.
Shri Kaurav, learned Advocate General, on being asked about
the aforesaid, submits that since he has received the file and
instructions only a short while ago, he wants further time to answer
the query raised by this Court on 16.03.2020.
The petitioner who appears in person submits that next round
of counselling is scheduled to start from 04th of May, 2020 and thus
expresses urgency.
Accordingly, State is granted further time to seek instructions
as regards order dated 16.03.2020.
-
K
K>
WP.6429.20202
The matter stands adjourned with liberty to the petitioners to
pray before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for early hearing of the matter.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge
(Sheel Nagu) Judge
pd\
PAWANgE—DHARJSEi*—
ssS™*AR y.'HM rt H -IS V
I •