D.P. Mohapatra, J.@mdashThe petitioners, medical graduates, intending to join postgraduate courses in different specialities in the Government
Medical Colleges in the State during the year 1986-87, filed this writ petition praying to quash Clauses 2, 6,4,5 and 7.2 of the prospectus issued
by the State Govt. and for further direction to the authorities to accept their applications and to permit them to sit at the entrance examination.
2. The essence of the grievance of the petitioners was that the aforementioned clauses in the prospectus wherein the applicants were required to
fulfil the eligibility requirements by 30th June of the year of admission was fixed arbitrarily and since the petitioners could not fulfil the said
requirements due to reasons completely beyond their control, they were deprived of the opportunity to appear at the entrance examination for
selection for admission to post-graduate courses.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the case may be shortly stated thus :
The final M.B.B.S, Examination, 1985, which was to be held in April of that year, was held in the month of August. The petitioners appeared in the
said Examination. The result were published in November, 1985 immediately whereafter the petitioners joined the course of Compulsory Rotating
Housemanship. The period of housemanship was one year. It appears from the prospectus for the year 1986-87 that it was approved by the State
Govt. in the Department of Health and Family Welfare on 8-8-86 and was issued in October, 1986. Therefore, the statement contained in Clause
2 of the prospectus that the academic session commenced from July and that the candidates were required to fulfil the eligibility requirements by
the 30th June of the year of admission, were apparently incorrect. In Clause 6.4.5 of the prospectus it was stated that those who had completed
compulsory rotating housemanship or five years of service by the 30th June of the year of admission should furnish a certificate from the competent
authority evidencing that fact and in Clause 7.2 that the candidate must have satisfactorily completed the Compulsory Rotating
Internship/Housemanship training in a hospital recognised for this purpose by the 30th June of the year of admission. These requirements,
according to the petitioners, were impossible to be fulfilled by them and all other medical graduates of the year 1985. It was the contention of the
petitioners that arbitrary fixing of the cut-off date as 30th June of the year of admission prejudicially affected their career and future life. On account
of the artificial cut-off date they were unnecessarily made to lose more than a year before getting a chance to get admission into the postgraduate
courses and higher specialities. It was the further case of the petitioners that during the last three to four years the academic session for these
courses never commenced before October and November of the year in question. Therefore, fixing 30th June as the cut-off date on the
assumption that the academic session commenced from July was done without due application of the mind by the authority concerned and hence
arbitrary.
4. The opp. parties, that is, the State Govt. in its Helath Department, Director of Medical Education and Training, Orissa, and the Principals of the
three Medical Colleges in the State, while trying to justify the cut-off date, took the stand, inter alia, that the date was fixed taking into
consideration the commencement of the academic sessions under the Statutes of the three Universities, Utkal University, Berhampur University and
Sambalpur University to which the medical colleges are affiliated. Since the exact date when each of the Universities would hold the M.B.B.S.
Examination could not be ascertained by the opposite parties, the cut-off date had to be fixed as aforesaid. The opp. parties have not denied the
allegation that fixing the date made it impossible for the petitioners and the other candidates who has passed the M.B.B.S. Examination in 1985 to
apply for admission to the post-graduate courses.
5. At the commencement of hearing the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opp. parties submitted that no effective relief can be
granted to the petitioners since the year 1986-87 for which the impugned prospectus was published is over. But, on an analysis of the matter, the
learned counsel was constrained to admit that the controversy centering round fixing 30th June of the year of admission as cut-off date has
persisted since long and that in view of some decisions of this Court holding that fixing that date was valid (See Dr. Sanjukta Panda and Others Vs.
State of Orissa and Others, Dr. Leena Das and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and Dr. Chitta Prasad Das Vs. State of Orissa and
Others, while another decision taking a contrary view that the date was arbitrary (See O.J.C. No. 1902 of 1984 (reported in AIR 1985 NOC
242) (Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra v. State of Orissa) the position should be resolved by decision of the larger Bench. The learned counsel for the
parties in course of their submissions reiterated the stand of their respective clients as indicated earlier.
6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the prospectus for selection of candidates for R.H.S. assignment, post-graduate courses and higher
specialities in the three Medical Colleges of Orissa is issued every year after it is approved by the State Govt. in the Health Department. It would
therefore be reasonable to expect that while finalising the contents of the prospectus the authorities would take into consideration the facts and
circumstances prevailing during the year in question. In fixing the cut-off date same relevant facts to be taken into consideration will be the date
when the M.B.B.S. Examination was held, the date when the candidates who successfully completed it would complete their internship/
housemanship and be eligible to apply for admission to the post-graduate courses and the date when the post-graduate courses for the year in
question is likely to commence. Care should be taken to see that the field of selection is as broad based as possible and large number of
candidates are not kept out from the arena by picking up an artificial cutoff date. This will enable the authorities to make proper selection of
meritorious candidates; the foremost consideration in the matter of selection to post-graduate medical studies.
7. During the year in question, i.e. 1986-87, the authorities while finalising the prospectus in August, 1986 were fully aware that the M.B.B.S.
Examination which was scheduled to be held in the month of April, 1985 was held in the month of August and the results were published in
November that year. They were also aware that the courses of studies could never commence before November, 1986 even making conservative
estimate of the time taken for finalising the list of candidates.
8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, fixing 30th June as the cut-off date for 1986-87 can neither be said to be reasonable nor germane. In my
view, it would, on the other hand, give an impression as if a date has been picked up out of the hat by completely ignoring the relevant factual
positions prevailing then. As noticed earlier, the stand taken by the opposite parties is that the date has been selected considering the provision in
the University Statutes that the academic year is to commence from the first day of June of the year and close on the 31st of May of the succeeding
year. At the outset I may observe that no material has been placed to show on what basis these dates are fixed for the academic year in the
Statutes. No material is also produced to show that the academic year is fixed by the authorities in the University considering the relevant facts
from time to time. It is common knowledge and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the aforesaid description of the academic year in the
University Statutes is followed more in its breach. Schedules for University Examinations are very often changed, inordinately long time is taken for
declaration of results and there is a good bit of uncertainty about commencement and close of the academic session in the Universities. However, I
need not delve further into the matter since that is not the question for consideration in the instant case. Suffice it to say, that picking up the cutoff
date for the purpose of admission to the post-graduate medical courses on the basis of the academic session stated in the University Statutes
ignoring the facts prevailing during the year in question would, in my opinion, be unreasonable and arbitrary. Such action would result, as it did
during the year 1986-87, in keeping out a large number of candidates from the field of selection. This strikes at the very purpose of any process of
selection, particularly for higher technical education like medical sciences. In course of his submissions, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate posed a
difficulty said to be faced by the authorities while framing the prospectus. He submitted that it is not possible for the authorities to know the exact
date on which the three Universities will hold the M.B.B.S. Examinations conducted by them. That was not the difficulty faced during the year
1986-87 since admittedly the result of the 1985 M.B.B.S, Examination was declared in November, 1985 and the prospectus was finalised in
August, 1986. However, that difficulty may not also arise if a date like the first day of the month during which the prospectus is issued is taken as
the cut-off date. We were informed at the Bar that this is the practice followed in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Here I may
notice that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad reported in AIR 1986 SC 1877
examining the scheme for holding entrance examination for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses and post-graduate medical courses submitted before the
Court by the Government of India held as follows :
Thirdly, so far as the All India Entrance Examination for the Post-Graduate courses is concerned we are of the view that there should be only one
examination in a year as suggested by the Government of India in the Scheme submitted by it. But we are of the view that it would not be right to
insist that a student should not be eligible for appearing at this examination unless he has completed compulsory rotating internship practical training
programme and obtained registration from the Medical Council of India or any of the State Medical Councils. That would greatly inconvenience
the students. The final M.B.B.S. Examination is normally held in October/November each year and therefore every student has to undergo
compulsory rotating internship practical training for a period of one year and then only he can be awarded M.B.B.S. Degree and he can obtain
registration from the Medical Council of India or a State Medical Council. If therefore it is provided that a student shall be eligible to appear at the
All India Entrance Examination only after he was (has ?) acquired M.B.B.S. Degree and obtained registration, it would mean that he would be able
to appear at such Examination only after a lapse of about one year from the date of his passing M.B.B.S. Examination...... It would be better in our
view if a student is allowed to appear at the All India Entrance Examination after the result of the M.B.B.S. Examination is announced and he is
declared to have passed M.B.B.S. Examination, because at that date the theoretical part of the syllabus would be fresh in his mind and it would
save him the trouble of reading the entire course over again after a period of one year.....
However, it is for the authorities in charge of medical education in the State to consider all relevant aspects and formulate an appropriate Scheme
for admission to postgraduate medical courses and higher specialities. The position is that the particular cut-off date specified in the prospectus for
the year depends to a great extent on the facts and circumstances prevailing during the period. Therefore, it cannot be said with finality that 30th
June could never be a reasonable and proper cut-off date. It might have been so during the year in question if the M.B.B.S. Examinations were
held in April, 1985 as scheduled and the results were declared by the end of June that year. But as discussed earlier, the factual position during the
year 1986-87 was very much different and that was not taken into account by the authorities in fixing the cut-off date. As noticed earlier, this Court
in the cases of Dr. Leena Das and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, upheld 30th June as the cut-off date holding that since it was based on
the academic year described in the University Statutes it was not arbitrary. These decisions for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs must
be held to be incorrect.
9. The question that remains for consideration is the relief to be granted to the petitioners. The year for which the impugned prospectus was issued
is over. The petitioners did not appear in the entrance test held for admission to the post-graduate courses that year. Nearly one year of the three
years course is going to be completed. In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that a direction should be issued to the authorities to make special arrangements for admission of the petitioners to the post-graduate
courses which commenced in the year 1986-87. For the succeeding year the bar of eligibility would not operate so far as the petitioners are
concerned. Therefore, in my view, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the writ application. However, the decision in this case regarding
fixation of the cut-off date and the observations made in this judgment shall be borne in mind while framing prospectus during the coming years. As
noticed earlier, we decided to consider the question of fixation of the cut-off date because the problem has been a recurring one since several
years in the past and apparently divergent views had been expressed by different Division Benches of this Court.
10. In the result, (for) the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons set out therein, the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief in the writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed subject to the observation made in the preceding paragraphs. There will be
no order for costs of this proceeding.
Agrawal, C.J.
11. I agree.
R.C. Patnaik, J.
12. I agree.
