DR. JIBAN DEBNATH Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, a Medical Officer, borne in Grade -IV of Tripura Health Service has challenged the action of the respondents No.1 & 2, whereby they had refused the petitioner to take part in counseling for admission in the Post Graduate Courses in Agartala Government Medical College, the AGMC in short, for the academic session 2016 -2017.

(2.) The facts are mostly undisputed. In terms of the Educational Notification dated 28.12.2015, Annexure -P/1 to the writ petition, the petitioner appeared in the PG Common Entrance Test, 2016 -2017 for admission in the PG courses at the AGMC as the sponsored candidate of the Government of Tripura against his Roll No.S -137. From the combined merit list, Annexure -P/3 to the writ petition, it would appear that the petitioner secured 192 out of the total marks of 200. However, from the combined merit list, it transpires that the petitioner secured the rank 6. From the Educational Notification dated 28.12.2015 it clearly transpires that out of 7(seven) seats earmarked for 'sponsored candidates', total 4(four) seats are to be filled up from UR candidates and 3(three) from the candidates from the ST/SC. The petitioner has asserted his grievance by stating that the respondents for the first time, by the notification dated 01.04.2016, Annexure -P/5 to the writ petition, had declared that '...those who secured qualifying marks as per MCI norms only, they are eligible to attend in the counseling as per merit list of Tripura Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, (TPGMAT) -2016 which was published on 14.02.2016.'

(3.) Even though the petitioner was not asked to appear in the counseling held on 07.04.2016, the petitioner appeared there and asked the respondents why he was not called to appear in the counseling against 4(four) seats earmarked for the sponsored UR candidates. The petitioner has clearly admitted that he was conveyed that he did not secure 50% marks in the eligibility test as per the guidelines of the MCI and hence he was not called to appear in the counseling as he could not be selected. The petitioner has, in this context, asserted that nowhere in the Information Booklet (Prospectus), 2016 it has been provided that minimum 50% marks is to be obtained in the eligibility test out of 400 marks for getting admission in the PG course (MD/MS), 2016. The petitioner as sequel to the said statement has averred that the said omission is an indicator to the fact that the MCI guidelines were never adopted by the respondents for admission in the PG courses. Before the eligibility test, the respondents No.1 & 2 did not convey the candidates that 50% marks out of 400 is to be obtained in the entrance examination for appearing in the counseling or for admission against the available seats for PG courses. The subsequent educational notification dated 01.04.2016, Annexure -P/5 to the writ petition, whereby it was communicated that those who secured qualifying marks as per the MCI norms would only be eligible to attend the counseling cannot be read in the educational notification dated 28.12.2015 since that condition was incorporated after the eligibility test was over. The petitioner also admitted that the MCI by the notification dated 21.12.2010 has rearranged the sub clause (iii) of Clause 9 of the said notification which reads as under: