”\dl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURV Writ Petition (C) No.928 of 201 0 Dr. Munesh Kumar Gupta, Slo Shri Dinesh Chand Gupta, Aged about 24 years,‘ Permanent resident of Vinage & Post Salempur Khurd, vie -- Chhonkarwara, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Presentiy residing at Room No.42. Old Boys Hostei Pt J N M Medical College Jail Road Raipur (Chhattisgarh) r. (Ms.) Rupan Jha, Dio Shri Umesh Chandra Jha, aged‘aboutr v 24 years, Permanent resident of'C‘-' 2, Officers Colony, Central Hospital Narsarai Ramgarh Cantt (Jharkhand) Presently residing at Clo Dr SK Goal MD Hospital 358,, Samta Colony, Main Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492 001 ' Dr. (Me) Arti Gupta; D/o Late Shri A.K Gupta aged about 24 years Permanent resrdent of B460 Ashok Nagar Opposrte Holy Child School Ghazrabad (Utter Pradesh, Presently residing at Room No.27, Old Girls’ Hostel, Pt. J.N.M. Medical- College, Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Dr Rahul Tiwarl S/o Shn Radhe Shyam Tiwarl aged about 25 years Permanent resident of 101 Balajl Colony (Ext) Bhagwanpur Lanka VaranaSI (Uttar Pradesh) Presently residing- - Roomrr No.25.- New Boys’ Hostel, ' Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Jail Road, Raipur (ohhattiSgarh) Dr. Santosh Kuma'r Gupta, S/o $hri Dhruva Prasad, Wlage- D'Qhwa, Post Dighwa-Dubauli, District Gopalganj (Bihar), Presently - residingat Room No.42,.New Boys’ "‘ . ostel, Pt. J.N.M. Medl'c’al College,’ ’ Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 1. PETITIONERS: x " ‘ I H j Present . Shri Kshitii Sharma counsel for the petitioners Shri U N S Deo Govt Advocate for the State/respondents No1 & 2 Shri Lokesh Kumar Singh Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas Advocate for respondent No 4 Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. ORDER (8—3-2010) 1. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 0.2, first part, of the Chhattisgarh Medical Snatkottar Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules, 2004'), which is the part of Pre-PG Application Form-201 0 '(Annexure-P/1 ). 2. Rule 6.2 of the Rules, 2004 Was also the subject matter of Writ Petition .TNxC) No.1711 of 2009 (Dr. Abhishek Mishra & others Vs. State of \\ \ J 6. Dr Bhanu Pratap Smgh Slo Ranapratap Slngh Age about 29 years Permanent Resident of House 178- ' Lohia Colohy, r Gorakhpur (U.P.); Presently residing at Room 47, New Boys’ Hostel, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College,” Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) «. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Public Health, Family Welfare & Medical Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Medical Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Chhattisgarh Professwnal Examination Board C1168 Tagore Nagar Raipur District Raipur (CG) 4. Medical CounCil of India, Aiwan-e— Ghalib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi 110002 Chhattisgarh & others) and the petitioners had prayed for'quashing the Rule 6.2 ofvthe Rules, 2004. . After considering the entire arguments of the petitioners, this Court upheid the constitutionai validity of Rule 6.2 of the Ruies, 2004, as ' amended in the year 2009 and dismissed the petition.‘ r . Learned counsel for the petitioners‘submittedthat Rule 6.2 of the. . Rules, 2004, as amended in the year 2009, reproduced in Pre PG Application Form-2010 is the same, and there is no. subsequent amendment, however, the petitioners have assailed the constitutional . validity of the above rules on additional grounds as detailed in ~ paragraph (9). . it is‘ settled law that the validity of the statute once upheld cannot be reopened. The parties cannot be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law‘of the case or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court. lfthis was pennitted, the litigation“ would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. . Since constitutional validity of Rule 6.2‘of the Rules, 2004 has already been upheld by this Court in WP(C) No.1711/2009 (Dr. Abhishek Mishra & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), the instant petition > challenging constitutional validity of the same rule reproduced in Pre- PG Application Form-2010 is not maintainable. 7.‘ The. petition is accordingly dismissed. . - Sdl- i Sd/- ' Dhirendra Mishra Judge -\ {A