J JEYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Something is obviously rotten in the matter relating to admission into MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Tamil Nadu, giving rise to spate of litigations every year relating to such admissions. In the scheme of things, the concern for admission on the basis of merit with adequate and appropriate opportunity for the concerned candidates appears to be the last and least important item in the agenda.

(2.) In order to appreciate the agony of the petitioner including the agonizing wait for getting justice, it is necessary to notice certain basic facts which are no longer in dispute. Such facts have primarily been culled out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and based on a reasonable and rational reading of the writ petition, counter affidavit, reply affidavit and the documents available on record.

(3.) About a year back, as usual the process of selection `for admission into MBBS/BDS through single window system had commenced for the academic year 2002-2003. As per the chart provided in the counter it appears that counseling had been done on 10.7.2002 and 19.9.2002 for free seat category. Similarly, counseling had been done for the allotment of seats against Management quota (euphemistically called as payment seats) on 10.7.2002, 27.7.2002, 3.8.2002, 19.9.2002, 25.9.2002, and on 29.9.2002. The chart further indicates the cut-off marks for admission on various dates. The present case is concerned with the question relating to cut-off marks for admission in respect of payment seats as admittedly the marks secured by the petitioner (238.6) was way below the last cut-off mark in respect of admission against free seat. The chart indicates that on 14.10.2002, 35 students were selected for admission against payment seat and the lowest cut-off marks was 205.06. In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred and given the names of 4 persons, who were admitted, even though they had secured less marks than the petitioner. Out of four names indicated, in the counter affidavit specific denial has been made only in respect of one P.A. Sathish Babu and no specific denial has been made in respect of three others. Anyway it is apparent from the counter affidavit that a student who obtained 205.06 marks had been admitted which was far below the marks obtained by the petitioner (238.5). Soonafter such admission, the petitioner has approached this court with utmost promptitude on 23.10.2002 and secured an interim order on 24.10.2002 to the effect that one seat shall be kept vacant till the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for expeditious disposal of the writ petition, wherein an order was passed in January 2003 listing the matter for hearing during the month of August, 2003. It is obvious that the High Court was not in a position to take up the matter before August, 2003 because of extreme pressure on the judicial time of the court. (It has to be remembered that during those days about 30% of the posts in the High Court were lying vacant).