NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) In all these cases the question of law requiring consideration by this court and the relief sought are same, arising out of similar set of facts and thus they were heard jointly and are being finally decided by this common order. The PG students in these cases, who are petitioners in some of the cases and respondents in others, were registered for M.D., M.S. course in the year 1996, except Dr. Varsha Dashora who was registered in the year 1997, after having cleared in MBBS examination with one year's internship. They were allotted their placements in merit list in different subject/ specialities for M.D., M.S.course. Some of them were permitted to change, by reshuffling, their subject/ specialities. The PG students having not completed three years of training in a subject/ speciality before commencement of the examination they were not permitted to appear in the examination. Feeling aggrieved by not getting permission to appear in the examination writ petitions were filed. Under the orders of the Court they appeared in the examination and were declared successful.
(2.) The case of PG students is that Ord. 278-E of the University of Rajasthan postulates only the period of training for M.D., M.S. course, which is three years, and the period of training is to be completed for grant of Degree, but before completion of three years training one can appear in the examination, as the Ord. 278-E does not prohibit post-graduate students to appear in the examination before completion of the training in M.D., M.S. course. It is further urged that the requirement of three years training is only for the purposes to determine the eligibility of the student before awarding the Degree in the subject/ speciality and, thus could not be construed as a condition precedent, for appearing in the examination. The aforesaid submissions found favour of the learned single judge when he held "therefore in my considered view the purpose of Ord. 278-E(V) of the University of Rajasthan is achieved, if a student of M.D., M.S. examination has completed three years period of training before declaration of result of the examination and even that apart, vide Annexure -4 in the instant case, the State Government has allowed all PG students to take up M.D., M.S. examination who have completed more than 80% of total period of training subject to the condition that irrespective of taking of examination they would complete three years training period, and in this view of the matter, since admittedly the petitioners have already completed three years period of training as on 16th/ 17/07/1999, it would not be proper to deprive such candidates like the petitioners of their taking M.D., M.S. examination wherein they appeared, which was scheduled to commence on 11-5-99 but postponed to 29-5-99". Thus the learned single judge has taken a view that although the PG students have not completed three years of training before commencement of the examination, they can be permitted to appear in the examination, and it could be seen at the time of declaration of the result whether they have completed three years training in a subject/speciality. The learned single judge further held that if the PG students, under the directions issued by the State Government on 6-4-1999, have completed 80% of the training before commencement of examination, they shall be entitled to appear in the examination. The PG students also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by learned single Judge in writ petition No. 2602/97 Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal v. University of Rajasthan decided on 29/08/1997 in support of their contention, wherein it was held that true purpose of Ord. 278-E, even in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, although has to be three years training for appearing in M.D., M.S. examination, it is also imperative to construe that a candidate should complete the required period of training of three years prior to conferment of the Degree of M.D., M.S., but that cannot prevent him from taking the post-graduate entrance examination even though he may be on the verge of completion of such training. Before conferment of such Degree the candidate should not run short of three years.
(3.) In Maharshi Dayanand University v. Dr. Anto Joseph, (1998) 6 SCC 215, the Apex Court was required to consider the requirements of the Medical Council of India with regard to the period of training, which reads thus :- "MD/MS From the year 1993 onwards, the minimum period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three calendar years and the candidates can be admitted to this training after their full registration with the Medical Council (S). No exemption shall be given from this period of training of 3 years either for doing Housemanship or for any other experience or diploma." The Apex Court held that these requirements are laid down to ensure that the full period of training necessary for acquiring the qualification is completed and it is in the public interest that they are not lightly deviated from. In Director, Medical Education, Lucknow v. Dr. Swapnil Chauhan, (2000) 10 SCC 585, the Apex Court was called upon to consider a similar circular issued by the Medical Council of India providing minimum period of training for awarding of MD/MS Degree from the year 1993 onwards, of three calendar years and the Court said that the provision makes it abundantly clear that no credit can be given to the respondent for the period of study for diploma for obtaining MD/MS. Three calendar years' minimum training is an essential requisite for the award of post-graduate degree of MD/MS.;