SATISH WASNIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that he had secured merit rank no. 362 in the All India Entrance Examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the Post Graduate (MD/ms/pg Diploma and MDS) courses for the year 2008 in the scheduled caste category. On a reading of para 11 of the prospectus issued by the All India institute of Medical Sciences which stipulated that three batches of scheduled tribes/scheduled caste candidates must report in advance to the batches mentioned in the counselling schedule at the venue for counselling and as per the notified schedule the petitioner had appeared with all original documents at the venue of the counselling in the morning of 8th March, 2006. Mr. R. K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the batch of rank nos. from 361 to 375, as per the brochure, was scheduled to appear for counselling in the morning session of 11th March, 2008. As per the notified requirement of the candidates appearing with the three batches in advance, the petitioner had appeared in fact in the morning session of 8th March, 2008 which was really four batches in advance. Yet he was not permitted to participate in counselling by the respondents on the ground that the counselling in rank nos. 361 to 375 had already been held on 7th March, 2008 and consequently he had been marked absent. The petitioner had again appeared on the next date of counselling on 10th March, 2008 when he was still not permitted to participate necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. A. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has appeared on advance notice. It has been contended that as per the brochure, the petitioner was required to appear three batches in advance and consequently ought to have appeared in counselling in advance, three days before 11th March, 2008. According to the respondents, the petitioner was required to appear on 7th March, 2008. He not having appeared on 7th March, 2008, the respondents can not be faulted for treating him as absent and proceeding with the counselling. It has been submitted that the second round of counselling is to be held by the respondent from 22nd March, 2008 to 9th May, 2008.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that clause 11 of the prospectus wherein the manner in which counselling is to be effected of the prospectus detailed the requirement of candidates appearing in person. The same provides the manner in which counselling for the seats to the reserved categories shall be effected as well. It would be appropriate to consider the relevant extract of this clause in extenso which reads thus :-