G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) INITIALLY , the present writ petition was filed praying for a direction that respondent no. 3 -Medical Council of India (in short 'MCI') should be directed to take a decision on the recommendation dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure P -3) submitted by respondent no. 1 -State for relaxation of 5% marks in All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE -2014) entrance test in respect of general category candidates belonging to the category of 60% quota candidates (PCMS in service Doctors) in terms of Provisio to Clause 6 of the notification No. 5/33/2013 -3HB -III/8618 dated 23.12.2013 on account of non -filling of the seats in the respective Government medical colleges. On notice of motion being issued, decision was taken by the Municipal Council on 07.05.2014 (Annexure P -5) which is now the subject matter of challenge in the amended writ petition which was filed thereafter. Vide the said order, respondent no. 3 has rejected the representation of the State by placing reliance upon the Post Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') as amended vide Gazette notification dated 21.07.2009. Vide order dated 19.05.2014, it was agreed between the counsel for the parties that since the dispute was centered around the interpretation of the Regulations and there was no need to wait for replies since the cut off date was nearing i.e. 31.05.2014, resultantly, counsel for both the parties have addressed arguments.
(2.) THE plea taken now in the amended writ petition is for quashing the said decision dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P -5) on the ground that amendments had been made in the regulations on 17.11.2009, 21.12.2010 and 15.02.2012 (Annexures P -6 to P -8) respectively, which provided for relaxation to the in service candidates who are serving in remote/difficult areas and, therefore, further prayer was also made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to relax the marks. The petitioners, who are MBBS Doctors, presently serving as Medical officers in the rural areas on account of being PCMS Doctors for the last more than 4 -5 years, appeared in the AIPGMEE -2014 and scored less than 50% marks and got only marks between 45% to 49% in the said entrance test. As per Part -B of the prospectus issued for the admission to the Post Graduate courses by respondent no. 4 University i.e. Notification dated 23.12.2013, Clause 6 provided the eligibility criteria with minimum 50% marks being required in AIPGMEE -2014. Under clause no. 26, eligibility criteria was further provided for 60% quota candidates (PCMS in service Doctors). The petitioners applied for admission and in view of the recommendation dated 14.03.2014 and reminder dated 16.04.2014 made by the State Government granted no objection certificates. As noticed above, action was not taken by respondent no. 3. Resultantly, the writ petition was filed when the impugned order was passed. The respondents no. 5 to 17 got themselves impleaded on the ground that if the seats were not filled up by the eligible in -service candidates, the same would be converted into the 40% quota seats and offered to them, as they were fully eligible in the said quota having secured 70% marks in the entrance test. Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the eligibility clause for in service candidates provides that they have to complete service in rural areas as per Clause 26 II (a), which they admittedly had done and even no objection certificates have been issued by the State. It was submitted that on the strength of the notification dated 17.11.2009, a proviso had been added in the regulations whereby weightage was to be given in the marks as an incentive at the rate of 10% marks obtained for each year of service in remote or difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in order to determine the merit. It is submitted that if the said weighage is given, the petitioners would become eligible and would get more than 50% marks. The second line of argument which was put forth by the senior counsel for the petitioners was that vide notification dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P -7), the Medical Council of India had to consult the Central Government while taking a decision on lowering the minimum marks and the said procedure had not not been done and it was submitted that many seats were lying vacant and in view of Clause 27, in case of non -availability of candidates in the 60% quota, the vacant seats should be offered to the candidates from the open category belonging to the 40% quota and, therefore, the petitioners' right for consideration would be taken away.
(3.) TWO questions that thus arise for consideration before this Court are whether the decision of the MCI was justified in rejecting the request of the State Government and whether the petitioners have any legal right for seeking a writ of mandamus praying for a direction to the respondents to relax the marks in view of the notifications Annexures P -6 to P -8. A perusal of the prospectus would go on to show that as per Clauses 6 to 8 of the prospectus, admission is to be based on the rules and regulations of the notification as per the merit of the candidate determined on the basis of AIPGMEE -2014. Similarly, clause 2 provides the general eligibility conditions for admission to the Post Graduate courses which is to be as per the notification dated 23.12.2013. Clause 4.2 further provided that eligibility was to be determined by the said notification and by the Selection Committee at the time of counseling those not eligible as per Punjab Government notification were not to be considered for admission. Clause "4.2 The candidate should read the eligibility condition carefully and just appearing in counselling does not entitle him/her for admission. Eligibility conditions for admissions are as per Punjab Government Notification (s). The eligibility shall be determined by the Selection Committee at the time of counseling. Those who are not eligible as per Punjab Government notification will not be considered for admission. The candidates will appear in counselling at their own risk and responsibility." ;