Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.@mdashThis order will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 5042, 5470 and 6005 of 1990 as the question of law and facts involved In them is common. In all these petitions, there is a pristine dispute between the admission seekers and the heads of the medical institutions to highly prestigious degree courses, though here the scope of controversy is very limited. The common question mainly involved in, these petitions relates to institutional preference in the matter of admissions to the M. D. Diploma Courses in the Punjab State, Medical College, Patiala/Amritsar for the session-1990. Though in C. W. P. No. 6005 of 1990, some additional attacks were made demonstrating discrimination between the who have not done any house-job, and not put in three years'' rural service and those who claim to have fulfilled these requisites, but by an interim order of the Admitting Bench dated 17-5-1990. it was observed that tie above controversy stood resolved by a decision of this Court in CWP 6192 of 1990. Therefore, CWP No. 6005 of 1990 was admitted qua the issue of institutional preference alone.
2. The facts canvassed in these petitions lie in a very narrow compass and may thus, be noticed as under :
3. The petitioners are holding M. B. B.S. degree and they have done their house-jobs from General Hospital, Chandigarh, which, according to them, is recognized by the Medical Council of India, for all intents and purposes. Annexures P-1 and P-2, are the Certificates on the record in this regard. By an advertisement issued by the Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala, applications were invited from Medical Graduates for admission to postgraduate Medical _ Degree/ Diploma Courses in various subjects in the two colleges, Amritsar and Patiala. Amongst other sources, 40 per cent seats were to be strictly filled in on merit from fresh Medical graduates, Punjab Civil Medical Service II Officers and Registrars/Demonstrators. Sixty percent seats were to be first filled up from amongst Registrars/Demonstrators and remaining seats by offering to P. O. M. S, II Officers with a minimum three years rural service. All the P.C.M.S. II Doctors, who had served the State Government for a minimum period three years rural regular service-unending continuous ad-hoc service followed by regular service, were eligible for admission to post-graduate Medical Degree/Diploma Courses. All the petitioners have done their house-jobs from General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh which is recongnised by the respondents for the purpose of eligibility for admission to the Post Graduate Courses All the petitioners submitted their applications forms indicating therein their choices for the specialties as required by the advertisement The interview date for making admission was 16-4-1980. The candidate who had done one year house-job in the Hospital attached to the Medical College, Patiala, Faridkot, Amritsar is given 50 marks and 25 marks for sit months'' house job by way of weightage for admission to the Post-graduate Courses/Diploma Course, respectively.
4. There is also a provision of weightage vide Punjab Government Memo dated 9th January, 1990, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure R/2 to the written statement.
5. The petitioners grievance is that giving of weightage on the basis of institutional preference is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that the grant of 50 marks Jo the students, who have done their house jobs from the teaching Institutions, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the petitioners'' right to seek admission on the merit has been jeopardized.
6. for respondents have filed a detailed written statement and relied upon this Court''s decision rendered in C.W.P. No. 3954 of 1987 (Dr. Gautam Singh Sikand and Ors. v. State of Punjab). This Court following the ratio of
7. The perusal of the entire record indicates that the candidates, who had done their house job from the Medical Colleges situated in the State of Punjab are given weightage and are given institutional preferential treatment whereas the other candidates, who had dote their house job from other hospitals are treated as belonging to the general category candidates and no weightage of marks and preference is given to them
8. Earlier the matter of institutional preference came up before the Supreme Court in
9. The question of institutional preference was again considered in the case of
"After giving our thoughtful consideration to the question of college wise institutional preference, we are of the view that such preference or reservation of seats is not permissible and the High Court has tightly struck down both the impugned Rule 4(A) framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and part of Rule 5 framed under the Government resolution that is to say, only in respect of its application to the Grant Medical College in the City of Bombay relating to admission to Post- graduate M. D. Course we, however, make it clear that lie students who have been admitted to the postgraduate M D purse pursuant to the impugned rues, their admission shall not be interfered with or disturbed."
10. An M.B B.S. Doctor has to do house-job for the purpose of entering into medical profession or for admission to pest course. The seats being limited in medical colleges the M B F Doctors have to do house-job either from Government Hospitals or from private Hospitals for seeking admission to post graduate course '' The respondents for the purpose of making merit list for admission to post-graduate course gave weigh rage of 50 marks preference to the candidates of Punjab University, Patiala and Guru Nana Dev University, Amritsar, who had done the house job from teaching institutions which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as meritorious candidates of other Universities, shall be denied admission The ratio of decision in D N Chanchala''s case (supra) has no'' bearing in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Curt in Dr Ashok Kumar Gupta''s case and Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation''s case (supra).
11. In view of discussion and following the ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the respondent State''s decision dated 9 1-1990, a copy of which is Annexure 4 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, hence is here by quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for admission to post-graduate course afresh as per their eligibility in the current session In case if is not possible to accommodate them in the current academic session, they are to be accommodated in the next session. However, it is made clear that the candidates who have ahead been admitted to post-graduate courses by giving weightage. their admission shall not be disturbed.
12. This petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above There will be no order as to costs.
