UPASANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.K. Raizada with Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocates for the petitioners, Ms. Menka Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Central Council of Indian Medicine, Mr. S.K. Shandilaya and Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocates for private respondents.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioners were candidates for admission to Post Graduate Ayurvedic Medical Course in Government Rishikul, Ayurveda College, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The first counselling for admission in the said Post Graduate Ayurvedic Medical Course was held on 19.10.2012 in which there were only three subjects for offer i.e. M.D. (Ayu.) Pharmaceuticals; M.S. (Ayu.) General Surgery and M.D. (Ayu.) Panch Karma. For the first counselling 17 candidates, including the present petitioners were invited. Although their first choice was the subjects which were not being offered in the first counselling such as M.S. (Gynecology & Obstetrics), M.S. (ENT & Head), etc. they were therefore constrained to give their choice for only such subjects in the first counselling as were offered. As such they opted either for M.D. (Ayu.) Pharmaceuticals, M.S. (Ayu.) General Surgery and M.D. (Ayu.) Panch Karma. The next batch of 16 students were invited for second counselling on 31.10.2012. By this time two more subjects had come up for counselling in the Post Graduate Medical Course i.e. M.S. (Gynecology & Obstetrics), M.S. (ENT & Head). The candidates who were invited for the second counselling were admittedly lower in merit than the present petitioners, who were called in the first counselling. However, the persons lower in merit, according to the petitioners (who were called in the second counselling), were granted admission in M.S. (Gynecology & Obstetrics) and M.S. (ENT & Head) as these subjects were not available in the first counselling, and were offered only to the students in the second counselling only. The petitioners have challenged this process of counselling and their main argument would be that if M.S. (Gynecology & Obstetrics) and M.S. (ENT & Head) were not in the first counselling, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to have offered such subjects to the petitioners as admittedly they were higher in merit, and only thereafter to the students who were lower in merit should have been offered these subjects.

(3.) THE present petitioners have impleaded all such private respondents who are lower in merit and have been allotted subjects such as M.S. (Gynecology & Obstetrics), M.S. (ENT & Head), etc. - the subjects on which they would have opted had it been their in the first counselling.