A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 16th July 1982 this petition has been dismissed on merits. On the date on which this petition was listed for hearing neither of the two Counsel for the Petitioner appeared. However, we examined the petition on merits and by the aforesaid order dismissed the same.' Subsequently, upon an application moved by Sri. H.S. Joshi, on behalf of the Petitioner we reheard the petition on merits. Having heard Sri. Joshi in support of this petition, we find no merits in it.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against a notice issued by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad to the various Heads of the Departments of the said College stating that the Petitioner along with various candidates mentioned in that notice were not eligible to appear at the Post Graduate Examination for the degree of MD in Radiology. The notice states that the Petitioner was ineligible for the aforesaid examination on three grounds, namely. - (i) that his attendance was short of the prescribed minimum; (ii) that the Petitioner had not filed the required bond; (iii) that no permission was obtained from the employers, namely, the department in which the Petitioner was serving after his admission to the MD course in Radiology. In the petition, the aforesaid notice is assailed on a number of grounds all of which were considered at some length by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. The Principal Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad, 1981 EC 351. The Division Bench held that the notice did not suffer from any illegality, nor did it violate any principle of natural justice or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though a number of grounds have been taken in the petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stressed only one point for our consideration namely that the Petitioner has wrongly been declared ineligible on the ground of alleged shortage of attendance. It was urged that the fact that during the relevant period the Petitioner was employed in the Provincial Medical Service and posted at the Primary Health Centre, Jasra district Allahabad could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he was absent from the Medical College.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and given the matter a careful consideration, we find no merit in the above submission. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (supra) this Court had occasion to consider at great length the nature of training which a student of MD course is required to undergo and upon an examination of the applicable Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India as well as the provisions contained in the prospectus of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Allahabad, the Division Bench held that from nature of training prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations it is apparent that the student has to be a full time resident in the Medical College and that the training excludes the possibility of a student serving simultaneously elsewhere. The Division Bench referred to various Regulations of the Medical Council and observed as follows: These two regulations, therefore, clearly contemplate that the training of Post Graduates for Degree Courses is to be on the Residency pattern and the candidates are required to work in the concerned department of the Institution for the full period. In other words, these provisions totally exclude the possibility of a candidate joining a private or Government service during the course of his training for Post Graduate Degree Courses. The Petitioners in the first petition admittedly joined Government service during the course of their training for Post Graduate degree course and certainly rendered themselves ineligible for appearing in the final examination.;