RATHORE, J. - (1.) THESE are four writ petitions and at the request of the respective parties all the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. The facts of the case of Dr. Sanjay Pareek & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1449/2004) are being taken as a leading case.
(2.) THE petitioners passed the MBBS courses from recognized colleges and also completed internship as it is part of MBBS course and were declared successful in the said course. The petitioners were interested to join PG Course in different medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan in in- service category. As per the policy decision in the State of Rajasthan dated 18. 6. 98 if a candidate who is already in service of the State of Rajasthan as Doctor and has served the State of Rajasthan in rural areas for 3 years or in hilly, tribal and desert areas for a period of 2 years then such doctor can apply for the PG course in the various medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan in the category of in-service. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are qualified to apply for the PG course as being in- service candidate. The State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement for Pre PG Entrance Examination in the month of April 2002 for the batch of 2002 and for the eligibility in the category of in- service the petitioners were required to obtain minimum 50% marks in Entrance Test. Since all the petitioners have not secured 50% of marks, which is required for eligibility to appear in the entrance test, thus, the petitioners preferred the writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge vide order dated. 11. 6. 2002 disposed of the writ petition with some direction to Medical Council of India. The order dated 11. 6. 2002 passed by the learned single Judge is assailed by the petitioners before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter of Full Bench vide reference order dated 28. 8. 2002 and framed two questions of law, which was answered by the Full Court vide judgment dated 5. 2. 2003 and held that regulation 9 was not a legal impediment against the State Government in filing such seats by taking the candidates who might have secured even less marks than 50% in Pre PG Entrance Test and accordingly directed the State Government to grant admission to the said candidates of 2002 batch.
(3.) AGAINST the Full Court judgment dated 5. 2. 2003 the SLIP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 19. 8. 2003 passed the following interim order: " We have taken up the hearing in all these matters. However, it is found that in SLP (c) Nos. 965/2003 and 14367- 91/2003 formal notices have not yet been issued. There were several writ petitioners before the High Court who have been impleaded as respondents and in out opinion they must be served and afforded an opportunity of hearing before these matters are taken up for hearing. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service shall be effected on all the respondents through Director Health Service, State of Rajasthan as per the private respondents are all in service doctors and in addition notices shall also be published in Rajasthan Patrika (Hindi) and The Hindustan Times (English), Jaipur Edition. In addition we direct the Secretary (Medical & Health) department, State of Rajasthan to put in notice on the notice board of all the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan about the filing of these petitioners and their coming up for hearing and that the respondents may enter appearance if so advised. The publication in the newspapers and notice displayed on the notice boards of the Medical Colleges shall clearly state the names of all the private respondents. The State of Rajasthan, University of Rajasthan and Dr. Ajay Srivastava are represented in connected matters and they accept notices in these matters. Notices need not be served on them. The Convenor of Pre-PG Examination and Union of India have been served in the connected matters and have chosen not to appear. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are proforma parties and not interested in contesting these matters. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment submitting that the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Rajasthan though directed conflict with the earlier decisions of this Court as also with State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Gopal D. Tirthan and Ors. 2003 (6) IT 204 that being followed in the State of Rajasthan. It is directed that operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended for future. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the matter vide its judgment dated 16. 9. 2003 in the case of Harish Verma and Others vs. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. (1), decided the question and quashed and set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan and restored the judgment given by the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the interim order dated 19. 8. 2003 some of the petitioners pursuing their study in PG course for about six months. Their admissions were cancelled as per their undertaking furnished before Hon'ble Supreme Court. ;