[o8 H!G§‘% C0§JRT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BKASPUR EIV§S§ON EENGH CQRNW HCEN’BLE SHRI WAJEEV GUM‘A CJ‘ HON’BLE $HR! SUNHL KUMAR $§N%-%A, J. Wi’ii ?eiit§en {CE NO‘ 2%g?’ of 2MG §ETm0NERS 1 Dr. Laxmaneshwar Som, S/o, Shri DBpSoni, aged about 34 years, R/a. Near Civii Howitai, Civii Line, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, (6.6.) Dr. Pankaj $ahu, aged about 35 years, 8/0. Shri BR. Sahu, R10 Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) Dr. Dharmendra Gahwai, aged about 3D years, S/o. $hri Mr. RA. Ghawai, R/o. JP. Vihar, Mangia, Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (0.6.) Dr. Pravin Kumar Jangde, aged about 30 years, S/o. Shri Govtnd Kumar Jangde, R/o Bhatgaon, district Raipur (8.8.) Dr. Gayendra Diwan, aged about 31 years, 8/0. Shri Bisheshwar Diwan, r/o P.H.C. Sisringa, Tahsil & Raigarh (cs) Dr. Ramnarayan Das, aged about 37 years, S/o Shrt Kalidas R/o viilage Ranipur, PI), Pahariya, Blook—Batoda, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Dr. Shiv Pal Singh Sidar, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Puri Ram Sidar, R/o Old Power Heuse, Deoridih, BPO Deorikhurd, district Biiaspur (C.G.) 'Dr. Satish Chandrawanshi. aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Kheduram Chandrawanshi, Rio Viiiage Birkona, district Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS State 9f Chhattisgarh, thmugh: the Secretary Higher Education Department, Dau Kalyan' Singh Bhawan Raipur,’ (C.G.) 2 The Secretary, Hea!th and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan', Raipur (0.6.) 3 The Director, Medicai Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Directorate, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ratpur (C.G.) 4. The Director, Heaith Services, DKS. Bhawah, Raipur (CG) RESPQNDENTS WRET PETiTiON HNDER ARTtCLE 226 GF THE CDN$T£TUT§GN CF iNDlA Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsei for the ‘ petiticnerer Shri Ktehore Bhaduri, teamed Additienai Advecate General, for the State. GRDER rr‘h May, 2m) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsei for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The petitieners have iiied this writ petition for the following reiiefs : “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to can for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That this Hon’bie Court may kindly be ,oieaeed to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting aside the imeugned merit liete dated 09434-2010 issued by the 110 respondent No.3 (Annexure P/1) and further be p!eased to direct the respondents, fer preparjng fresh singie merit list, by awarding 30% bonus marks i0 the petiiioners, in accerdance with iaw. 10.3 That any other relief/Order which may deem fit and wet in the facts and circumstances 0f the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3) The petitioners ate Medicai Graduates. T'ney had appiied fer admtseien in Post Graduate Degree and Dipioma Course for the year 2m 0r 4) The petitieners’ main grievance is that, the respondents have awarded only 29% bonus marks to the petittoners, whereas, they are entitied to 30% bonus marks under Rule 9.1 of Chhattisgarh Medical Snatakottar Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2004 {for short, ‘2004 Rules’), 5‘} Rule 9.1 of the 2004 Rules reads as follows : “9t As ,oer the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of india minimum quaiifying marks in the Pre PG Examination are 40% for candidates of reserved category (SC, ST, OBC at!) and 50% tor candidates of unreserved category Names of all candidates who get minimum qualifying marks shail be tnciuded in the merit list However extra 20% bonus marks for non CRMC Government Doctors and 30% bonus marks for CRMC institutional oandidate shall be added to the marks obtained by them in their Pre PG examination.” up 6} A bare reading of the above quoted Rme 9.1 9f the 2004 Rules mat-(es it apparent that niy CRC institutional candidates are entitied to 30% bonus marks. 7) the issue involved in this writ petition, reads as follows : “5.1 For Government Dcctors — Only such Government Doctom werking unde the Goernment of ChhattiS§arh wiil be eiigibie to be sponsored for the course who wilt becompleting ttve years of service after PSC seteotton or their regutarizatton by the State Government as the case may be on or before 30? Aprtt of the year in whichvthe Pre~PG Examination is heid. This period shall be counted from the date of joining the service after seieotio from Public Service Commission or their reguiarization as the case may be. Rme 5.1 9f ihe 2004 Rules which is aiso re!evant for deciding State Gover (CRMC insti emoiovees a on 30“ April entitied for t doctors Quot issued bv Dir ” 8) ‘CRMC’ and ‘CRMC lnstituttons' are defined in Rule 2.10 and 2.11 of the 2004 Rules irt the following manner : “2.10 CRMC means the Chhattgarh Rural Medical Core Yojana. 2.1m CRMC institutions means the lhstitutions which are oiassitied as, hard and hardest in CRMC as “per order noF-i~143/20G8/Sevehteen/One, ’daieci i stigma.“ /< ,Qt(«%fir l l H ea/aw . 1/; rr‘fin”? i r v “ n However nment doctors workinq in hardest/hard tutions) both as reouier or contractual nd have compieted three veare of service of the vear of examination shall aiso be he seats reserved for state government a. Certificate for such elioibility has to be ector Health Services of Chhattisdarh. is o M 2 9) Fmm the above quoted Ruias .10, 2.11, 5.1 and 9.1 0f the 2004 Rules, it becomes crystai ciear that omy those Dcctors who are serving in CRMC institutions f0¥ more than three years are eniitled to get 30% bonus marks under Rule 91 ofthe 2064 Ruies. 10) As CRMC i.e.Chhattisgarh Rural Medicai Core Yojana itself came into force 0e 16.1 1 .2009 and is in ire very first year, how the petitioners can oiaim that, they are serving these CRMC institutions for the iest more than three years. 11) On this short ground atone, the writ petition filed by the petitioners claiming 80% bonus marks on the ground that, they are serving for CRMC institutions, is iiabie to be dismissed. 12‘) ThwLe’titim, therefore, is dismissed summarii . i Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/— is? ' Chief Justice . " 7 subbu