LAWS(SC)-2000-2-86

DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION LUCKNOW Vs. SWAPNIL CHAUHAN

Decided On February 10, 2000
DIRECTOR,MEDICAL EDUCATION,LUCKNOW Appellant
V/S
SWAPNIL CHAUHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent after qualifying in the P. G. M. E. E. in 1994 was allotted a seat in the Diploma Course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics [hereinafter Diploma G and O) ] in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad which she joined in May, 1994. She had also sought admission for M. S. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) [hereinafter M. S. (G and O) ] at the time of applying for admission. It appears that a seat in M. S. (G and O) fell vacant because of the resignation of one of the candidates on 1st February, 1995. The respondent claimed admission to the M. S. (G and O) against that vacancy. That request having been declined, she filed a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to admit the respondent in M. S. (G and O) course in the session 1994-97 for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Dr. Anupam Bansal within two weeks. This direction was made by the High Court on 11/9/1996, admittedly, much after the course in M. S. (G and O) for session 1994-97 had commenced. The appellants approached this Court and submitted that the direction given by the High Court on 11th September, 1996 to admit the respondent in M. S. (G and O) course for the session 1994-97 runs in the teeth of the judgment given by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta and Ors. [jt 1992 (4) SC 422] = [1993 Supp. (1) SCC 594], and could not be sustained. In the special leave petition, on 22/3/1996, following order was made:

(2.) Subsequently, since the respondent had been granted time repeatedly to file the counter affidavit and had not filed it. Leave was granted and the interim stay earlier granted was continued.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent filed, in this Court, an application, being I. A. No. 2/97 complaining that though the respondent had studied for Diploma (G and O) , she was not being permitted to appear even in the examination for Diploma (G and O). That application was allowed and by an order of this Court dated 4/4/1997, it was directed that the respondent be allowed to appear in the Diploma (G and O) examination to be held in March/april, 1997, provided she satisfies all other requirements for the purpose. It is conceded before us that respondent has since appeared in the Diploma (G and O) examination and been declared successful.