NADA NADEEM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner who is an M.B.B.S. Student has challenged the result of counselling of the U.P. Postgraduate Medical Entrance Examination -2015 (for short 'U.P.P.G.M.E.') whereby the seat of M.S. (Ophthalmology) in O.B.C. category has been allotted to the opposite party no.6 at the K.G.M.U., Lucknow, though the petitioner was ranked higher to him in the select -list. The petitioner has sought her accommodation on the said seat allotted to the opposite party no.6.

(2.) ON 21.4.2015 this court had passed an interim order, inter alia, to the effect that joining of course in the institution at Agra shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The petitioner did not join at Agra, as, in the meantime she was selected in the All India P.G.M.E. and was allotted a seat of M.S. (Ophthalmology) at the Aligarh Muslim University, where she has taken admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the event she succeeds in this writ petition she would have the option of resigning/withdrawing from the seat allotted to her at Aligarh Muslim University prior to 29.5.2015 without forfeiting the money deposited by her.,on the other hand, if she joined at S.N.M.C. Agra, then she would not have been able to opt for the seat under the All India P.G.M.E.

(3.) FACTS of the case in brief are that the petitioner and opposite party no.6 qualified for the U.P.P.M.G.E. Examination. Both belong to the ''O.B.C. Reserved Category' and had applied accordingly. The petitioner secured 127th rank in the State (50th rank in O.B.C. Category) and opposite party no.6 secured 186th rank in the State (75th rank in ''O.B.C. Category'). Vacant seats under various categories including O.B.C. Category were duly advertised and were also uploaded on the website, therefore, the same were known to all the candidates. counselling for the seats in questions took place between 24.1.2015 to 26.1.2015. About 250 candidates participated therein. At the place of counselling there were three halls -one was a waiting room for the students/candidates from where they were called to another hall where the counselling was to take place, and the third was the hall where the parents of the students/candidates were accommodated. Both the latter halls had two large screens, one displaying various seats available in the colleges as per their category and the other screen displayed the biometrics of the candidates such as thumb impression and photo etc., when the candidate was asked to make his choice during counselling. About seven counselors including the Principals or representatives of various State Medical Colleges were present. The Joint director, Medical Education was also present and, according to the opposite parties was making the announcements, but she had no role in the displaying of information on the screens, though according to the petitioner she was handling the monitor relating to the display. Be that as it may, the petitioner participated in the counselling as did opposite party no.6. She appeared at 6:00 p.m. On 24.1.2015.