Skip to content


Dr. Chittaranjan Misra Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurn. Case No. 1787 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Ori236
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantDr. Chittaranjan Misra
RespondentState of Orissa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL. Rath, ;B.S. Misra, ;P.M. Das and ;N.K. Behera, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateG.B. Patnaik, Govt. Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredDr. Sidhartha Das v. State of Orissa. It
Excerpt:
.....state in 1981-82emphasis is ours). thus it has specifically been provided in the prospectus that only those resident house surgeons who had been admitted in the medical colleges of the state in 1981-82 were eligible to get admission in the post-graduate course and not the candidates like the petitioner who had completed the r. course in 1981-82 and the petitioner appeared at the examination, but failed to qualify himself......to the refusal by the post-graduate selection committee for admission of the petitioner to the post-graduate course in obstetrics and gynaecology in spite of his completion of the r. h. s. course in the ispat general hospital, rourkela, recognised by the indian medical council after graduating himself in medicine from the s. c. b. medical college, cuttack, as per the terms of the prospectus (annexure-a) published by the convener of the post-graduate selection committee-cum-principal, v. s. s. medical college, burla, for selection of candidatesto the post-graduate course in the three medical colleges of the state of orissa for the year 1982-83, in spite of his applications (annexures-2 and 3) in this regard and as averred in the application, the petitioner has been surprised by this.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. Challenge in this writ application is with regard to the refusal by the Post-Graduate Selection Committee for admission of the petitioner to the Post-Graduate Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in spite of his completion of the R. H. S. Course in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, recognised by the Indian Medical Council after graduating himself in Medicine from the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack, as per the terms of the Prospectus (Annexure-A) published by the Convener of the Post-Graduate Selection Committee-cum-Principal, V. S. S. Medical College, Burla, for selection of candidatesto the Post-Graduate Course in the three Medical Colleges of the State of Orissa for the year 1982-83, in spite of his applications (Annexures-2 and 3) in this regard and as averred in the application, the petitioner has been surprised by this action and has been discriminated against. The opposite parties, in their counter-affidavit, have denied the allegations and averred that the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted to the Post-Graduate Course as he had not come to the R. H. S. Course through an entrance examination in any of the three Medical Colleges of the State and the seats for the Post-Graduate Course had been reserved only for the candidates who had come in that process. Thus under the terms of the Prospectus, they assert, the petitioner could not claim any discrimination for not being admitted to the Post-Graduate Course.

2. Mr, Rath for the petitioner has invited our attention to Clause 12.3.1 in the Prospectus which reads :--

'For P.-G. Courses including M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery)--The candidates who have undergone R. H. S. study during 1981-82 inside the State will be selected for P.-G. Studies on their application without any other test subject to production of certificate of satisfactory completion of the R. H. S. study.'

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of this Clause in the Prospectus, 'the petitioner, having completed the R. H. S. Course inside the State, was to be admitted to the Post-Graduate Course and referring to the observations made in AIR 1979 SC 765 State of Kerala v. K.umari T. P. Roshana and AIR 1982 Orissa 139 Dr. Trailokyanath Kanungo v. Dr. A. K. Acharya, Mr. Rath wants this Court to make an appropriate direction to the State Government to increase a seat, if necessary, for admission of the petitioner to the Post-Graduate Course as it has been submitted on behalf of the State that all the seats in the Post-Graduate Course for the year 1982-83 have been filled up. The learned Government Advocate has, however, taken us through the entire Clauses of the Prospectus and, in particular, Clauses 7 and 12.3.2 thereof and has submitted that Clause 12.3.1, by itself, might lend some assurance to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, but the Clauses of the prospectus, read as a whole, would disentitle the petitioner to admission in the Post-Graduate Course.

3. The petitioner may have been surprised by the refusal to admit him to the Post-Graduate Course, but we are not Clause 12.3.1 is to be read conjunctively with the other provisions made in the Prospectus and, not disjunctively. Clause 12.3.2 provides:

'No direct candidate other than those admitted to the R. H. S. Course in 1981-82 is eligible for admission to P.-G. Course.'

Under the heading 'Availability of Seats and Reservations' in Clause 7, Clause 7.1.1 provides:

'The following seats are available in R. H. S. and, P.-G. Courses in the three Medical Colleges during 1982-83.

Total seats availableDistribution of P.-G. seats between inservice and direct candidates.

SubjectsR. H. S.P.-G.InserviceSeats to be filled up by the R. H. S. admitted in the Medical Colleges of the State in 1981-82.

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX11. O. & G.16321616XXXXXXXXXX.'

Out of the 32 seats in the Post-Graduate Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 16 seats had been reserved for the In-service candidates and the other 16 were to be filled up by the R. H. S; (ResidentHouse Surgeons) admitted in the three Medical Colleges of the State in 1981-82Emphasis is ours). Thus it has specifically been provided in the Prospectus that only those Resident House Surgeons who had been admitted in the Medical Colleges of the State in 1981-82 were eligible to get admission in the Post-Graduate Course and not the candidates like the petitioner who had completed the R. H. S. Course not in any of the Medical Colleges inside the State, but in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, although he did take and complete the R. H S. Course inside the State as mentioned in Clause 12.3.1 and had produced the certificate of satisfactory completion of the R. H. S. study. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties and submitted before us that there had been an entrance examination for admission to the R. H. S. Course in the three Medical Colleges of the State. The learned Government Advocate has submitted, that this examination was for admission to the R. H. S. Course in 1981-82 and the petitioner appeared at the examination, but failed to qualify himself. In the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner that he has come out successful at the entrance examination of the year 1982-83 for selection of R. H. S. candidates and has been admitted to the Post-Graduate Course. In our view, Clause 12.3.1 is to be read with and controlled by Clauses 7.1.1 and 12.3.2 of the Prospectus. It follows that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the Post-Graduate Course as claimed and prayed for.

4. At the hearing, our attention has been invited to the observations made by this Court in AIR 1981 Orissa 97 Dr. Sidhartha Das v. State of Orissa. It also related to the question of admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Course for another year which was allowed in respect of the petitioners on different grounds, but the case of two interveners, who were resident doctors in the Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela, was not accepted by holding thus (at p. 99):--

'So far as the two inlerveners who came on the first day of hearing are concerned, we may point out that they belong to a different class than the petitioners. They are resident doctors in the Ispat Hospital at Rourkela which is an approved: institution, but admittedly they are outside the Medical Colleges and to usthey appear to be a class by themselves who cannot be equated with the petitioners.''

In the instant case, too, as earlier indicated by us, the petitioner had completed his R. H. S. Course in the Ispat General Hospital and not in any of the Medical Colleges of the State after taking the entrance examination and was not entitled to admission in terms of the Prospectus (Annexure-A).

5. We thus find that the writ application is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed without making any order as to costs.

J.K. Mohanty, J.

I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //