ANURADHA BHARTI Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants along with some others approached the Writ Court seeking to contend that the insertions made in SRO 158 of 1995 by SRO 430 of 2007 are inappropriate and not sustainable, the reason being that such insertions stood in the way of the writ petitioners being eligible to offer themselves for being admitted in the post-graduate medical courses.

(2.) BY the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been rejected on the ground that the insertions so made are aimed at fulfilling the Directive Principles of State policy contained in Section 24 of the constitution of the State. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been preferred by two of the writ petitioners. SRO 158 of 1995 sets down the eligibility of candidates who are entitled to apply for being considered for admission in post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges. By SRO 430 of 2007, two clauses have been added to SRO 158 of 1995, whereby and under an in-service aspirant seeking admission in post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges is required to have at least two years of rural service experience. Only when a candidate has so served, he would be entitled to apply for being considered for admission on the strength of a certificate to be issued. It had been the contention of the State, which contention has been accepted by the learned Single Judge and repeated before us, that the said clauses had been inserted for the purpose of enticing in-service Medical Officers to serve the village community and, thereby, to improve the backward regions of the State insofar as medical facilities are concerned. There cannot be any dispute that many and probably almost all the rural areas are backward in comparison to urban areas of the State in relation to medical facilities available to the denizens of the respective areas. Therefore, there can not be any dispute that if the Government decides as a policy to improve upon the medical infrastructure available in rural areas and, for that matter, either entices or compels, as a condition of service, its existing members of medical service to serve in rural areas, such a policy, as such, may not be interfereable. In the instant case, however, by the insertions, referred to above, service in the rural areas has been made as an eligibility criteria or condition for an in-service candidate to apply. Specifying eligibility, no doubt, is within the domain of the person competent to specify eligibility. Neither the writ petitioners, nor the appellants have contended that the State Government is incompetent to fix eligibility. They are contending that fixation of eligibility of having minimum of two years of rural service is bad and illegal, inasmuch as the same is not achievable through the effort of the candidate, but depends upon things which are beyond his control.

(3.) FIXATION of eligibility either of academics or of experience, though, is a matter strictly within the domain of the person competent to fix eligibility, but the same must be achievable by the person seeking to cross the eligibility hurdle either by his own efforts or by exercise of his option. When an eligibility criterion of a particular percentage in a particular examination is fixed, the person, who has been able to achieve that criterion, alone is entitled to contend that he has eligibility. Obtaining of that particular percentage in that particular examination depends upon the effort of that candidate and is not circumscribed by anything else. Similarly when a particular experience is the bench-mark of eligibility, a person who has that experience can contend that he has eligibility. In order to achieve that experience the person concerned must have the option to pursue his career in that direction without being circumscribed by anything else.