AMENDED PETITION C IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 5075 0f 2010 PETITIONERS :1) Dr.Ani1 Vivek, aged 27 years, S/o. D.S.Sinha, , R/o. Qr.N0.25, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) :2) Dr. Nilesh Jaiswal, ag€d 28 years, S/o. Shri B.'L.Jaiswa1, R/o. Village and Post Ramnagar, Tahsil and District Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1), State of Chhattisgarh, acting through Principal Secretary, Department of Health 81, Family Welfare, Matralaya, DKS, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, edical Education (Examinatioh Controller), State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) :3) Medical Council of India, through it Chairman, Pocket No.14, Sector~8, New Delhi— Dwarka, Phase—1, 110077 :4) Gayatri Bandhi, S/o. not known, Department of Community Medicine, Pt.J.L. Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :5) Pratibha Sharma, D/o. not known, Department of Radiotherapy, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :6) Umakant Tiwari, S/o. Not known, Department of Medicine, Pt.J.L. Nehru Medical College, Raipur (elm M AMENDED PETION if XO :7) Mahesh Sandi'ya, S/o. not known, Department of Pathology, Pt’J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :8) Kishore Kumar Some S/o. not known, Department of Anatomy Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :9) Net Ram Beck, S/o. not known, Department of Community Medicine, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :10) Vikas Kumar Dhruv, S/o. not known, Department of Anatomy, Pt.J.L.Nehm “Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :11) Indra Kumar Some, S/o. not known, Department of Anatomy, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :12) Arvind Kumar, S/o. not known, Department of Medicine, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :13) Sukumari Sahu, D/o. not known, Department of Ophthalmology, y ‘ Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur ‘1 (C.G.) :14) Bhagwan Singh Thakur, S/o. not known, Department of General Medicine, Pt.J .L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :15) Balmik Prasad Sonkar, S/o. not known, Department of Orthopedics , Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :16) Rajatili’g’l‘oppo, S/o. not known, Department of Ophthalmology , Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur IT @ w x k AMENDED PETITION (C.G.) :17) Jayashree Sahu, D/o. not known, Department of Pediatric, Pt.J.L. Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) 18) Surendra Kumar Singh, S/o. not known, Department of Orthopedics, Pt. J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) Saroj Kachchhap, S/o. not known, Department of ENT, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) :20) Mahesh Kumar Suryawanshi, S/o. not known, Department of Anaesthesia, Pt.J.L.Nehru Medical College, Rajpur (C.G.) :21) Shiv Baran Singh, S/o. not known, Department of Pathology, Pt.J.L. Nehru MedicalvCollege, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, ORDER] ORDERS, DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS vi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI 85 Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ w.P. 1C) No. 3064/2010 Dr. Malnisha Khande Vs. State of Chhattisarh 8s another g w.p. {0) No. 3509/2010 Thandaram Patel and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others w.P. o No. 5075/2010 Dr. Anil Vivek and another " Vs. State of Chhattisarh and others g JUDGMENT/ORDER xeEoVr consideration . Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge '~ l Sd/— G. Minhajuddin Judge 30 /og/201L HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. MINHAJUDDIN#"M :Rw K ‘ Post for nzj 09/201 1 o//09/2011 () HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: \r Mr, K. A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr Devesh Kela 8a Mr. A. S. Ansari, counsel for the petitionex(s) in W.P(C).No.5075/2010 and w.P.(C). No.3064/201o. Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C), No.3509/ 20 10. Mr. , Vinay ‘Harit, Deputy Advocate General, for the State] respondents 1_ & 2. JuDGMENT/ ORDER (9».092011) 'Per LM. gunnust, J, 1. By these writ petitions meti‘ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the entire selecu'on procedure adopted by respondents 1 8a 2 for / N DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI 85 Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ W.P. (C) No. 3064/2010 PETITIONER: Dr. Manisha Khande Vs. RESPONDENTS: Stats of Chhattisgarh 85 another W.P. (C) No. 3509/2010 PETITIONERS: Thandaram Patel and others Vs. RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P. (C) No. 5075/2010 PETITIONERS: Dr. Anil Vivek and another Vs: RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh and others admission to the Postgradugte Medical Degree courses for the year 20 10 as also the Rules framed in the Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2004. W.P]C!.No.3064 of 2010 Petitioner Manisha Khande after obtaining M.B.B.S. degree from CIMS, Bilaspur and being a candidate of Scheduled Caste Category, appeared in Pre—P.G. Medical Examination for the year 2010—11 which was held on 14.03.2010 and in the combined merit list issued on 09.04.20 10, her name was found place at S1.No.31 whereas in the list of reserved category, she was placed at S1.No.1 with 176.04 marks. She was, shown to be selected to the Degree course in Ophthalmology. As she wanted the degree in Gynecoloy, the seat was allotted to Dr. Devesh Khande, who got second rank in the SC category. It is her stand that she attended the dist counseling held on 23.05.2010 and the said counseling was not properly conducted because of wrong evaluation of answers which has caused gross injustice toher. She has contended that before conducting counseling, W.P(C). No.2364/2010 was tiled on 05.05.20 10 by two other candidates namely Thandaram Patel 8r. Arun Kumar Khedia against respondents 1 8r, 2, in which, it was urged that 18 model answers, which were excluded for evaluation of answer books, were either ‘incorrect or tw0' options were possible in case of wrong model answers and in that connection, reference was made to the text—books in the petition. She has further contended that respOndents 1 85 2 .1: ‘ T é delib/erately did not disclose before the Court that the hrst counseling has already been done on 23.05.2010 i.e., during vacation and the admissions have already been made after the counseling. The o$cial respondents did not comply With the directions of the Court given in order dated 14.6.2010 and nothing was done for re—evaluation as directed by the Court nor any fresh merit list was prepared in accordance with such reevaluation. Instead, respondent no.2 published a public notice of the counseling to be held on 28.10.20 10 for selection to the left over Central and State quotas of 10 degree P.G. courses and 9 P.G. Diploma courses. Though reference is made to W.P.C.No.2864/ 20 10, it is stated in the notincation that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench will be kept in mind infuture. It has been further contended that despite passmg of the order by this Court 1n WP(C) No 2364/2010 the ofdc1al respondents did not comply with the directions issued in the said order. In the above background, the petitioner has inter-alia sought the following main reliefts): (i) To quash the counseling dated 23.05.2010 and direct the respondents to decide the veracity of model answers to question Nos.42, 49, 54, 60, 100, 151, 162, 172, 173 85 193 and Ie—evaluate the answer sheets, prepare a fresh merit list and then accordingly conduct the counseling for all the seats including that of Central Quota and State Quota. In the alternative, it is prayed that the re- evaluation of all the answer sheets should be ordered by deleting 10 model answers menh'oned above as was done 1n case of 8 other model answers by the respondents themselves on the obJectlons being preferred and havmg been found to be sustainable and accordmgly after such / //, re-evaluation a merit list be dimctcd to be prepared and counseling hcld on the«ba§is of the merit list. That the counseling schedule for 28.6.2010 be directed to be stayed pending decision of this case. wane). No.3509/201o With almost similar contentions, petitioners Thandaram Patel and Arun Knmar Kedia have liled W.P.(C).No. No. 3509/ 2010 seeking the following reEef(s) : 10.1 To issue appropriate order/direcn'on/wn't declaring the merit list issued on 0904.20 10 (Annexure P/ 1) in regar to Chhattisgarh Pie P.G. Examination as nonest. 10.2 To issue appropriate order/direction/writ‘ declaring the counseling dated 23.05.2010 8r. 28.06.2010 held for Postgraduate Course in Medical Science as in operative. 10.3 To issue appropriate direétion to the respondent authorities to constitute an independent Expert Committee to revise/modify/revaluate the impugned model answers and further to issue a fresh merit list. w. no} No.5o75/2oro In w.P(C). No. 3064/2010 8.; w.P(C).5075/ 2010 the petitioners have contended that the provision for reservation of seats for the Iii-service Government Doctors in the Postgraduate Course and award of 20% bonus marks to the in-service overnment G Doctors and 30°/o to C.R.M.C. doctor's as provided in sub- rule(1) of Rule 4 sub—rule(l) of Rule 9, of the Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pan'ksha Niyam, 2004 are ultravires to the Post—graduate Medical Examination Regulations 2000 and those provisions deserve to'be declared void. Accordingly, , these petitioners have challenged the Rules 4 86 9 of the Rules, 2004 and sought the following reliefls) in the writ petin'on : Y d To quash the Whole selection, re-evaluatc the answer sheets of all the canaiaates as per the Court order dated 14.6.2010; then prepam hesh men't list and to extend the period of admission. (ii) To cancel the admissions of the iii-service government doctors in the RG. Degree Courses and hll those seats horn the eligible fresh candidates. (iii) That the reservation of seats for the In-Service Government Doctors in the Postgraduate Degree course and awani of 20% bonus marks to Iii—service Government Doctors and 30% to CRMC Doctors as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pan'ksha Niyam, 2004 be declared ultra-vires to the "provisions of the post-graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 and therefore the admissions given to in service Government Doctors be cancelled, (iv) To direct State/respondent No.1 to take punitive action against respondent no.2] Director, Medical Education as because of his Wrongful act, the career and future of many deserving meritorious candidates of the open category have been adversely adected or in the alternative to issue directions to the respondents to admit such candidates including the petitioners who have been deprived of admissions by wrongful act of the respondent no.2 in the next session in RG. Degree courses of their choice. A perusal of the pleadings and relief(s) sought in the above writ petitions would show the main grievance of the petitioners that model answers published by respondents 1 81. 2 wherein 18 questions out of 200 questions were wrong and no decision was 9‘ '7 taken with regard to those 18 questions and some of them Were having more than one answer. M In. the above regaldrtgrulier wn't petition being W.P(C). No.2364/ 2010 was med by Thandaxam Patel and another and it was disposed of by this Court on 14¢ June, 2010 with direcu‘ons to the respondent/State that before conducu'ng any counseling the grievance of the petitioners as raised in that hetiu'on and the answers demonstrated by Ethem in Para 8.6 of that petition shall be considered and a fair decision shall be taken thereon and then only the counseling will be started. In case it is found that the petitioners’ averments are correct, the . L, answer sheets shall be re-evaluated accordingly so that no injustice be done to any candidate. It is further urged that the provisions of Rule 10(14) of the Chhattisgarh Snatakotiar PraveshV’VP-Itz’riksha Niyam, 2004 (for short ‘Rule 2004’) named for admission to the Postgraduate Courses in Medical Colleges of Chhattisgarh were not followed which provides conversion of seats from one category to another in case of non-availability of eligible candidates in the particular category to hll up the seats and therefore, the petitioners were deprived of considering their cases for admission. The petitioners have further pleaded that the seats were reserved for Iii-service Government doctors for P.G. degree course and award of 20%: bonus marks to the In—service Government Doctors and 300/0 to CR MC doctors was provrded under Rule 9 Sub rule (1) of the Chhattvsgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Panksha Nryam, 2004 which has not been provided in the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations ‘ 2QOOxand thereforer the rules made by the State' Government L\\ are contrary to the Rcglilations madc by the Central Govemmcnt. With regard to the wrong model answers of the quesu'on papels as well as more than one answers to a question were possible but not given any weightage to that option, we are not satisned with the learned Counsel for the State] Respondent 1 8n 2 as no satisfactory answer has been given and in this regard no detailed counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State/- Respondents. Therefore, it is notvknown as to whether the grievance of the petitioners was Iedressed or not. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, nrst of all, the grievance of the petitioners should be considered by the State Government and for that purpose the pen'tioners should file representations and on such representations being nled, the concerned authorities of the State—Respondents shall take decision by passing a reasoned order so that the petitioners would know the action taken by the State Government. Therefore, the matter requires enquiry at the level of the State Government. However, with regard to the question of awarding bonus marks or reservation of seats to ln—service Government Doctors in P.G. Degree Course, it is to be noticed that Entry 66 of List—1 ie., Union List of Seventh Schedule empowers the Central Government to make rules regarding co—ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher educau'on or research and scientinc and technical institutions, but where h I the provisions have not been made for a particular thing, Entry 25 of List III i.e., Concurrent List of VII Schedule y, //, 1 (ii) However, if the 'Statt: Authorities have found that the petitioners were not eligible or despite considering their cases, they could not complete their men't, it will be open for the State Government to reject their cases. (iii) The otcial respondents shall decide the representations as early as possibly within one month hum the date of. receipt of copy of the representations alongwith certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned order and shall communicate the said decision to the petitioners. If no representation is received within time, no action shall be taken. 13. With the above observations/dilections, the writ petitions Rae \M ‘ r stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). J“ . t " t t sd/- ‘ Sd/‘ i 1.M,Quddusi : G‘ M. :I‘l‘l'fgg‘dd‘“ . . [ Judge 1 ‘