CHHAVI MEHROTRA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Miss Chhavi Mehrotra, has moved this writ petition before this court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions for consideration of her admission to the MBBS course against the 15% all-India quota of 1992. This writ petition along with other similar petitions came for consideration and certain comprehensive directions were issued in matters for admission of students in the waiting list to various colleges in the country. In obedience to the orders of this court a notification dated 28/5/1993 was issued by the Director General of Health Services calling upon the candidates to signify their willingness to be considered for admission under the scheme evolved by the court. Despite the whole matter being seized of by the court, the petitioner moved - and what is disturbing us is that the learned Judge of the High court entertained an independent Writ Petition No. 1508 (M/s) of 1993 before the Lucknow bench of the High court and obtained certain directions which would not only be consistent with the consequences of the implementation of this court's order but would also interfere and detract from it. Learned counsel would say that it was a direct interference with the proceedings before this court. It is a clear case where the High court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more.

(2.) The Director General of Health Services has filed this IA for stay of the orders of the High Court. We stay the orders dated 4/7/1993 as well as the order dated 19-7-1993 made by the Single Judge of the High court in WP No. 1508 (M/s) of 1993 and direct the High court not to proceed with that writ petition.

(3.) Though, by this legal the petitioner has, prima facie, disentitled herself to any discretionary relief, we, however, do not intend to deny her, such benefit as she may obtain pursuant to the selection made in terms of the orders of this court. We are told at this stage that the petitioner has been allotted to a college in Rajasthan. That benefit may not be denied to her.