JASIMA SHAHABUDEEN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a candidate for admission to MBBS course during the academic year 2003-04. Originally when the writ petition was filed on 10. 11. 2003, the prayer was for issuing writ of Mandamus directing the centralised Admission Commission (CENTAC), the second respondent in the writ petition, to conduct supplementary counselling for the vacant seats as against Government quota in respect of Vinayaka Missions Medical College, the fourth respondent, and Arupadai Veedu Medical College, the fifth respondent, to enable the petitioner to join the 1st year MBBS Course during the academic year 2003-2004. By order dated 8. 4. 2005, the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer seeking for a direction to the Government of Pondicherry, the first respondent, to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & another v. Union of India & others (2005 (1) Scale 250) in paragraph 35, with reference to excess admission in MBBS Course made by the 4th and 5th respondent colleges to enable the petitioner to join in the first year MBBS Course.

(2.) PETITIONER is a candidate coming within OBC category in Pondicherry . She had appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the second respondent during the year 2003-04. Her score for the said year was 135. 042. She had received Counselling Call Letter dated 20. 9. 2003 to attend the counselling on 25. 9. 2003 for provisional admission to 1st year MBBS Course in the 4th and 5th respondent Medical Colleges. During the relevant time, by virtue of interim order passed in the other connected matters, the Government quota was 40% of seats in four colleges. Even though full quota of seats have been allotted to other colleges, regarding 4th and 5th respondent colleges, the 2nd respondent did not allot the entire Government quota but only allotted 36 candidates out of 40 seats in respect of 4th respondent college and 35 candidates out of 40 seats in respect of 5th respondent college. The petitioner had approached the second respondent authority to conduct supplementary counselling, but the second respondent did not heed to such request. In the amendment petitions numbered as WPMP. NOs. 9350 & 9351 of 2005, it was stated that the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2005 (1) Scale 250 has indicated: "35. . . . 11. If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year. " Relying upon the aforesaid observation, in the petition for amendment, it has been prayed that necessary direction should be given to the respondents to give effect to such observation of the Supreme Court.

(3.) THE next question is as to whether a direction should be issued for admission of the petitioner against Government quota on the basis of the marks obtained during 2003-04 common entrance test.