Tue. Sep 22nd, 2020

Methodology of selection by prescribing the roster points is discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable

2 min read

Himachal
Pradesh High Court- Deciding the writ petitions
involving common questions of fact and law wherein the allocation of seats on
the basis of roster points based on sub-groups in para 3.1 in the prospectus
issued by the Department of Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh and
the notice issued regarding the 4 point roster has been challenged, the
division bench of Rajiv Sharma and Sureshwar Thakur, JJ, held such allocation
as arbitrary and unreasonable and the groups should have been treated as one
group for the purpose of admission to MD/MS/MDS courses.

In the instant case, the petitioners have
participated in the selection process seeking admission to MD/MS/MDS courses
for the academic session 2015-18, according to the prospectus. As per para 3.1
of the prospectus, 66.6% of the State quota seats are to be filled up by
in-service candidates. The in-service group comprises of two further sub-groups.
Subsequently by the notice issued by the respondent-State, the first two seats
would go to Regular and 3rd to Contractual and thereafter 4th to Regular
(Medical Officers). Counsel for the petitioners contended that distribution of
seats as per the sub-groups was impermissible and unconstitutional and merit
should be the sole criterion for MD/MS and MDS courses. While counsels for the
respondents contended that constituting of sub-groups was in accordance with
law and also justified the preparation of roster.

With regard to the distribution of seats,
the Court observed that in-service candidates and non-service candidates are
two separate classes based on intelligible differentia, having a rationale
relation with the object sought to be achieved, however, there could not be
further micro classification on the basis of source of recruitment qua
in-service candidates. Stating that the goal to be achieved by classification
is that only meritorious candidates are admitted in postgraduate courses, the
Court emphasized that the methodology adopted by the respondents by prescribing
the roster points would promote only mediocracy and not merit. Consequently,
the admissions made through first, second and third counseling were quashed and
directed the respondents to redo the admissions based on merit only. [Dr. Vivek
Kumar Garg v. State of H.P., 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1374, decided on 18.6.2015]

 
Source: Legal news India

Leave a Reply