1 W.P.No.417-10 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.417 of 2010 1 Dr.Pankaj s/o P.D.Biraris and others ..Petitioners vs. 1 The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.Satish Mishra i/b Mr.A.M.Saraogi for petitioners. Mr.Jaideep Mitra i/b Apte & Co. for respondent no.2. CORAM: MOHIT S.SHAH CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J 15th July, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioners, after completing their course of M.B.B.S., joined K.E.M.Hospital in the year 2008 between 18th August and 11th September. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are aspiring for admissions 2 W.P.No.417-10 to the course run by respondent no.2 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai, have challenged notice dated 28th November, 2008 (Exh.C to the petition) issued by respondent no.2. By the said notice, respondent no.2 informed the candidates that no candidate holding plain stipendiary post will be enrolled either for Diploma for F.C.P.S. courses of the below mentioned institutions with effect from February 2009 as the institutions are not inspected for recognition of the plain post. Further the said notice provides that the candidates who have been admitted for MD/MS, through MH CET only will be allowed to enroll only for Diploma Courses of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay considering their admission in the under mentioned Medical Colleges: 1 Grant Medical College, Mumbai 2 Seth G.S.Medical College, Mumbai 3 L.T.M. Medical College, Mumbai 3 W.P.No.417-10 4 B.Y.L.Nair Medical College, Mumbai 5 B.J.Medical College, Parel and 6 Govt. Medical College, Nagpur 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the above colleges are recognised by the Medical Council of India for Post Graduate Degree as well as Diploma and respondent no.2 who follows the norms for recognition cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioners will not be enrolled as the petitioners who are working at St.George Medical College, Mumbai will not be enrolled as the said institution is not inspected for recognition of the plain post. 3 In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is submitted, inter alia, as under: I say that the petitioners being resident doctors in their respective medical institutions are eligible to do the same post graduate course of this respondent in the very same unit/department where they are presently posted. For example - or Resident 4 W.P.No.417-10 doctors posted in the Gynecology Department can enroll for a Post Graduate Course in Gynecology of this respondent and not for a Post Graduate Course in Radiology. I say that for the same the Dean of the respective medical Institution of the Petition (and only the Dean himself) has to forward to the Respondent no.2 names of the students along with the requisite proof (mentioned at page 21 of the petition) as per the format laid down by the Respondent no.2 or as near thereto as possible. I say that it is not the case of the petitioner that they made their applications for enrollment after complying with all the conditions as mentioned above and that this respondent had refused to enroll them thereafter. The petitioners did not apply for enrollment. I, therefore, respectfully say and submit that this petition is premature and ought to be dismissed accordingly. 4 It is further contended in the above affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 that the petition is premature as the petitioners took up their posts in the above colleges in or around August/September, 2008 which posts would require a minimum period of 5 W.P.No.417-10 3 years before eligibility for examinations and the petitioners would be eligible to appear for the examination only after August/September, 2011. 5 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the question of eligibility for examination is entirely different from the question of enrollment as the enrollment has to precede the examination. It is only if the petitioners are enrolled before that the petitioners would be eligible to appear at the examination to be held in 2011. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to submit the forms to be signed by the Deans of the concerned colleges and it is also submitted that inaction on the part of any authorities including respondent no.2 in not inspecting the concerned colleges/institutions cannot be a ground for denying enrollment to the petitioners. 6 W.P.No.417-10 6 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and particularly in view of the stand adopted by respondent no.2 in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed on their behalf, we dispose of this petition with a direction that if the Deans of the concerned medical colleges/institutions forward to respondent no.2 the petitioners names along with the requisite proof as per the format laid down by respondent no.2 in Exhibit A to the reply affidavit, respondent no.2 shall consider the petitioners applications for enrollment subject to compliance of the requisite conditions. 7 As regards the question of inspection of the concerned colleges/institutions, we see some justification in the grievance being made on behalf of the petitioners, that if respondent no. 2 waits for invitation from the concerned medical colleges/institutions for inspection 7 W.P.No.417-10 and if that is a matter of coordination between respondent no.2 and the concerned colleges/institutions, that may not be a ground to delay consideration of the petitioners application for enrollment. We, therefore, direct that if respondent no.2 goes for inspection of the concerned medical colleges/institutions which are named in Exh. C to the petition such colleges may give access to the representatives of respondent no.2 for inspection. 8 Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above directions. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.