DICTION Writ Petition NO
844 OF 1991
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH SLPNOS 16475  17635 of 1991
NS Hegde Amrendra Bal and JR Das for the Petitioners
Soresh Roy Ms Kirti Mishra and PN Mishra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA CJ
We have already dismissed the writ petition and special leave petitions by our order dated 5121991
We would however like to make a suggestion to the authorities for their consideration that some preference might be given to in service candidates who have done five years of rural service
In the first place it is possible that the facilities for keeping up with the latest medical literature might not be available to such in service candidates and the nature of their work makes it difficult for them to acquire knowledge about very recent medical research which the candidates who have come after freshly passing their graduation examination might have
Moreover it might act as an incentive to doctors who had done their graduation to do rural service for some time
Keeping in mind the fact that the rural areas had suffered grievously for non availability of qualified doctors giving such incentive would be quite in order
Learned counsel for the respondents has however drawn out attention to the decision of a Division Bench of two learned judges of this Court in Dr Dinesh Kumar  Ors
vs Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad  Ors 1986 3 SCC page 727 at 740
It has been observed there that merely by offering a weightage of 15 per cent to a doctor for three years rural service would not bring about a migration of doctors from the urban to rural areas
They observed that it you want to produce doctors who are MD or MS particularly surgeons who are going to operate upon human beings it is of utmost importance that the selection should be based on merit
Learned Judges have gone on to observe that no weightage should be given to a candidate for rural service rendered by him so far as admissions to post graduate courses are concerned see para 12 at pate 741
In our opinion this observation certainly does not constitute the ratio of the decision
The decision is in no way dependent upon these 337 observations
Moreover those observations are in connection with All India Selection and do not have equal force when applied to selection from a single State
These observations however suggest that the weightage to be given must be the bare minimum required to meet the situation
In these circumstances we are of the view that the authorities might well consider giving weightage upto a maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour of in service candidates who have done rural service for five years or more
The actual percentage would certainly have to be left to the authorities
We also clarify that these suggestions do not in any way confer any legal right on in service students who have done rural service nor do the suggestions have any application to the selection of the students upto the end of this year


Summary:
The appellant first accused a former Inspector of Industries alongwith an Inspector of Industries second accused was prosecuted under section 120 B read with section 420 IPC sections 51 b and 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the ground that both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and acting in concert the first accused obtained the Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufacture Essentiality Certificate and Import Licences on false representations while the second accused enabled him to obtain the same by his false recommendations
The Trial Court acquitted both of them on all the charges
The State filed an appeal before the High Court which on re appreciation of evidence held that the prosecution has established conspiracy beyond doubt and that only one conclusion was possible on the evidence that the accused are guilty of all the charges
Accordingly it set aside the acquittal and convicted both the accused on all the counts and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for two years under section 120 B and for two years under section 420 IPC
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 250 appellant accused that i the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court and ii the benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended to the appellant
Disposing the appeal this Court HELD The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the guilt against the appellant was established beyond doubt
Accordingly the conviction and the sentence awarded by the High Court is upheld
251 G 253 B The occurrence relates to the period between February 1967 and February 1969
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant while High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them
This Court granted bail to the appellant in 1980
Since then the appellant has several achievements to his credit in the industrial field
Therefore this is a fit case where benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 should be extended to the appellant
253 C E