Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.PARGATI HARCHAND versus DIRECTOR, PT.B.D.SHARMA POST GRADUATE IN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr.Pargati Harchand v. Director, Pt.B.D.Sharma Post Graduate In - CWP-9441-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2782 (2 May 2006)

C.W.P. NO. 9441 OF 2005

* * *

Dr.Pargati Harchand and others vs. Director, Pt.B.D.Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Sciences,Rohtak and others

PRESENT: Ms.Shashi Prabha,Advocate,for the petitioners.

Mr.Madan Gupta, Sr.DAG Haryana

* * *

Hemant Gupta,J.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the admission of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to M.D. Anesthesia Course and for directing the respondents to admit the petitioners to the said course.

Vide notification dated 22.11.2004, the Government of Haryana declared Director Pt.B.D.Sharma, Post Graduate Institute Medical Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as Medical College) as competent authority to conduct entrance examination for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS courses in Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana for the year 2005. In pursuance of such notification, Medical College invited applications for admission to various Post Graduate Courses. In the entrance examination conducted by the Medical College, the petitioners were placed at merit list Nos. 66,74 and 86. There were 25 seats for the degree course and 9 seats for diploma course falling to the open merit category. In addition thereto, 40 seats were meant for Degree Course and 14 seats for diploma course for the candidates of All India Quota. The case of the petitioners is that on the date of final counseling on 15.4.2005, as per the merit list, petitioner No.1 got admission in diploma course in Anesthesia whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were placed in waiti waiting list prepared on 19.4.2005 for Diploma in Anesthesia. 26 seats falling under All India quota remained vacant and were thrown open to the admission for open category candidates after the counseling on 15.4.2005.

It is the case of the petitioners that they have not been given an opportunity to opt for seats so made available. They have not been called for counseling nor given any option for admission to degree course in respect of seats which have now became available whereas candidates who are junior to the petitioners in merit list have been admitted for MD Anesthesia course.

It is,thus, contended that the admission to the degree course to a person who is lower in merit is arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

On behalf of the Medical College, it has been pointed out that para 2 of chapter VI of "Method and Selection and Admission" contained in the prospectus issued for the examination,2005 contemplates that the candidates will be called for counseling before the board according to their respective merit and they will be required to exercise their choice regarding the course(degree or diploma) and the subject of their choice.

The clause reads as under:-

"The candidates will be called for

counseling before the board according to their respective MERIT and they will be required to EXERCISE THEIR CHOICE regarding the course (degree or diploma) and the subject of their choice. Selection to the course and the subject will be according to the availability of the seat(s) at their respective merit at the time of counseling. The admission will close one month after the start of session and under no circumstances a change of subject or fresh admission will be allowed thereafter even if seat(s) remain(s) vacant."

On the strength of the said clause, it is contended by the respondents that in the counseling conducted on 15.4.2005, the candidates were allowed to opt for one subject for admission and one for waiting list. The candidates who did not want to opt for admission in any subject were allowed to wait list for one subject. After the counseling was over, the list of admitted and wait listed candidates were prepared by the Counseling Board. Petitioner No.1 had opted for admission to Diploma in Anesthesia and wait listed herself for Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynecology whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 did not opt for admission to any degree course rather they wait listed themselves for diploma in Anesthesia course. The said petitioners have been admitted in diploma in Anesthesia course and are continuing as such. It is pointed out that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were at merit list Nos. 96 and 139 did not opt for any course at the time of counseling but wait listed themselves for MD (Anesthesia). Since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 opted for admission in MD (Anesthesia), and the seats became available after the All India quota, the same were filled in as per the option of the candidates. The petitioners have opted for Diploma Course and,therefore, could not admitted for degree course in respect of which the person lower in merit has opted. It is, thus, submitted that the admission process has been completed in terms of the prospectus issued.

A perusal of Annexure C of Prospectus shows that out of total 82 seats, 40 were falling to All India Quota and 25 seats were meant for open merit seats for Post-Graduate Degree Course whereas there were 29 seats for diploma course including 14 for All India quota. As per the conditions contained in Chapter II titled as `Total Number of seats', it is contemplated that no transfer of seats from one subject to the other shall be allowed after final counseling. The counseling on 15.4.2005 is the final counseling in which the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have given their choice of subject and the course. Therefore, in terms of condition No.2 contained in Chapter VI and as reproduced above, the candidates cannot be permitted to change the subject even if seat is to remain vacant.

Keeping in view the conditions aforesaid in the prospectus, I am of the opinion that the interpretation given by the Medical College while admitting the students to the Post Graduate Course is possible interpretation. Therefore, the action of the Medical College in admitting students on the basis of such interpretation cannot be interfered within writ jurisdiction, as such action is not find to be either improper, arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust.

Therefore, I do not find that the action of the respondent is such may warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

( Hemant Gupta )

May 10, 2006 Judge

arya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.