- (1.) SPECIAL leave granted. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THERE are six Medical Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This dispute mainly relates to the admission into the Post Graduate Faculties of the Medical College located at Gwalior. The relevant order with which we are concerned was made by the High Court at its Principal Seat at Jabalpur on 17 -2 -88. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Madhya Pradesh Government evolved a scheme and notified the same on 21 -3 -88. The admissions into the Post Graduate faculties had to be regulated in accordance with the said scheme formal ted in terms of the order of the High Court dated 17 -2 -88. We would like to make it clear that no one challenged the order of the High Court or the scheme. Though that was the position, the Gwalior Bench of the High Court on being moved by some candidates by way of miscellaneous petitions made an order on 8th July, 1988 by giving the following directions: -
(3.) IN the circumstances aforesaid we make the following directions in disposing of the several petitions and applications for intervention: 1.THE authorities concerned of the State Government shall cause a notice to be published in the newspapers circulating at different places where there are Medical Colleges in the State in which M.S. Courses in different disciplines are available, namely, at Raipur, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior and Rewa. Let notices be published in newspapers circulating in those areas intimating to all intending candidates, who had filed writ petitions making claims in respect of available seats of "1986 quota" of Assistant Surgeons, which are either pending or disposed of, that they may submit their claims to the prescribed authority, as notified, latest by 10th of August, 1988. Any intervenor in any such petition could also be entitled to make similar application. All applications received shall be considered in terms of the revised criteria hereinabove referred and admissions shall be granted to eligible candidates accordingly. We further direct that the public notices shall be published in the manner aforesaid on or before 25th of July 1988. 2.THE Respondents shall be entitled to approach this Court at the Main Seat or at the concerned Bench, as the case may be, for disposal of pending writ petitions, if any, at those places, in the light of directions herein made. However, it shall be competent for the Respondents to consider and dispose of the application of any candidate, in accordance with directions made in para 1 above, notwithstanding pendency of his writ petition or application. 3.THE order passed by this Court on 17 -2 -1988 in Misc. Petition No. 4111/87 at the Main Seat and the order passed at this Bench on 24 -5 -1988 in Misc. Petition No. 286/88 are accordingly modified to the extent herein above indicated. All these several petitions and applications for interventions made are accordingly disposed of in terms of these directions. 4.IT is, however, made clear that if the Petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Saxena (in Misc. Petition No. 286 of 1988) is unsuccessful in his bid made in the aforesaid manner for one of the seats claimed by him, it shall be open to him to contest rejection of his claim ON the basis of any contention which has not been dealt with and disposed of by us today. The Order made on 17 -2 -88 by the Jabalpur Bench was modified by the Gwalior Bench a situation which may be open to question, but we do not propose to go into it. In view of the fact that the Order of the 17th of February, 1988. and the scheme formulated in terms of the said order had become final, there was no justification to make another order varying the scheme particularly when the State Govt. had proceeded to comply with it by formulating the scheme. It was an obligation of the State to implement the order once it was not challenged and it had no authority to alter it. The modification made by the State Government on its own in May, 1988 was, therefore, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Court's binding direction. By the order of July 8, 1988, the High Court approved the altered scheme of Government framed in May. We are of the view that the subsequent order of July 1988 should not have been made by the Court and the Court should have proceeded to enforce its previous order which had become final. On account of the variation made subsequently, the situation which was already confused became further compounded and these appeals became necessary.;