M SATHISKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the petitioner and the contesting respondents the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The third respondent is only a formal respondent, against whom no relief is sought for.

(2.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Course commencing from the academic year 2011-2012.

(3.) THE first respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 28.7.2011 by stating that the petitioner initially scored 195.50/200 marks and he was ranked at 2770 (in General) and at 532 (MBC community). As per the revaluation marks, his total became 196.50/200 and therefore his rank was also revised to 2079A and 399A respectively. THE revised rank was published in the website on 30.6.2011, immediately on receiving the results of revaluation/retotalling from the Director of Government Examinations. THE counselling schedule was hosted in the internet on 27.6.2011 stating that the candidates, whose marks got revised are permitted to attend the counselling as per the counselling schedule with proper evidence. Clause 25 of the prospectus is relied on to state that the counselling schedule will be available in the website and the candidates who have not received the call letter in time can also attend the counselling as per the schedule and as per their merit/rank and revaluation/retotalling marks were also counted as per clause 32 of the prospectus. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that as per Clause 27(ii) of the prospectus for MBBS/BDS course 2011-2012, if any candidate absented in the first phase, he/she cannot attend in the second phase of counselling. It is further stated that 31 candidates did not attend the first phase of counselling like the petitioner and if the petitioner is allowed to attend counselling in the second phase, the respondents will have to allow all other 30 candidates, which will cause confusion and upset the selection already made. It is the mistake of the petitioner in not attending the counselling after getting the revised mark sheet on 29.6.2011. According to the respondents the conditions contained in the prospectus are binding on the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to attend the second phase of counselling for admission this year.