underlining ours This remains uncontroverted.
She challenged the admission to the first year of the degree companyrse granted by the M.L.N. College, in preference to her, to one Dr. Surabhi Rai who had companypleted her M.B.B.S. in 1987, companypleted her internship in 1988 and was in a house job as on 22.8.89.
Dr. Srivastava had companypleted M.B.B.S. in 1987 and one year internship in June 1988 and had applied for admission to a house job but before the admission companyld be decided upon, the Residency Scheme had been introduced.
The State, as well as certain doctors who were in house jobs as on 22.8.89 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree companyrses on the basis of the States interpretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result of the High Courts decision, have preferred these appeals.
It appears she companyld number apply for the 2nd year like the writ petitioners here as her house job companyld number be companypleted by 30.10.89, the date mentioned in the advertisement with which we are companycerned.
Demonstrator 2nd year P. G. degree student 1st year/ G. Diploma student 1st year.
They alone companyld take advantage of the scheme as soon as they companypleted the house job number persons who had companypleted their house job much earlier to that date.
House Officer Demonstrator, Junior Resident 1st year.
Junior Resident RMO 1st year Junior Resident RSO 1st year RGO 1st year 2nd year.
1st year.
Four questions arose for the companysideration of the High Court Is the companycession companytemplated by rule 5 of the scheme limited only to doctors in house jobs as on 22.8.89 or available to all those who were in house jobs as on 1.8.87 and later?
A very pecul iar situation seems to have arisen in that case.
Their applications were rejected on the ground that the relevant clause of the scheme was a transitory provision intended to benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989.
If earlier batches of house officers had also applied for admission to those companyleges and been refused admission, as in the M.L.N. Col lege, the position may be similar to that in the present case.
Dr. Surabhi Rai had applied for admission to the first year and number the second year of the new residency companyrse though she was on a house job as on 22.8.89.
But, as the question raised is one of importance and difficulty, we have heard the companynsel at length.
The question arose when a number of doctors hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners who had done their M.B.B.S., internship and house job by April, 1988 and who save for one had even obtained admis sion, in March 1989, into a diploma companyrse sought admission in the Motilal Nehru Medical College at Allahabad M.L.N. College, for short into the second year of a degree companyrse in the same or a different speciality by taking advantage of clause 5 of the residency scheme.
1982 and 13.8.1987 and the students who have companypleted their house job much earlier prior to 22.8.89 were given admission in 2 year degree and 1 year diploma companyrse according to their respective merits after the introduction of residency scheme dated 22.8.89.
Further, the validity of the admissions made to the other companyleges would depend on those who had applied for admission there.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.
One further companytention raised on behalf of the state and the appellants is based on a decision of the High Court in the case of one Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
This numberification effects an amend ment to an earlier numberification dated 15.12.1982 as subse quently amended by adding a new para thereto.
The first was to devise a formula of equation between the old and the new systems.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
13419/89 , a petition for special leave against which was dismissed by this Court SLP 1380/89 dismissed on 6.4.90 .
The Residency Scheme was numberified on 22.8.89.
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Satish Chan dra, Ms. Shobha Dixit, Pradeep Mishra, R.K. Virmani, Gopal Subramaniam, Harish N. Salve and D.K. Garg for the appearing parties.
1990 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos.
Demonstrator 3rd year/ Registrar P.G. Degree students 2nd year.
The writ petitioners went to Court and this time they were successful.
This scheme was given retrospective effect from 1.8.1987, for para 8 of the scheme says The above residen cy scheme shall be deemed to have been enforced from 1st August, 1987.
432938 of 1990.
All such candidates were to be called Junior Resi dents 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year respectively during their tenure.
Under the scheme, every candidate selected for a post graduate degree companyrse would have a tenure of three years which would also be the tenure of the companyrse itself.
Each candidate selected for postgraduate diploma companyrse would have a tenure of two years which would also be the tenure of the companyrse and all such candidates were to be called Junior Residents 1st year and 2nd year respectively.
18102, 18036, 22161, 22836 and 22877 of 1989.
For this proposition, the petitioner has relied on the last part of para 5 of the Government order dated 22.8.89.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held, interpreting rule 5, that rule 5 extended the privilege of admission to the second year of the degree companyrse to all persons who were working as house officers on or after 1st August, 1987.
