DATTA UTTAM PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties considering the urgency in the proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner is serving as Medical Officer - Group-A at Primary Health Center, Loni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal having obtained M.B.B.S. Degree in 2013. The Primary Health Center where the petitioner is serving is categorised as a Difficult Primary Health Center. The petitioner appeared in the NEET-PG-2021 examination that was held on 11/9/2021 with a view to pursue DNB Degree/Diploma course. The petitioner secured 270 marks and after considering additional 7% marks per year for rendering service in "Difficult Public Health Center ", his total marks were calculated 345.6. In the final merit list published on 4/3/2022 he was placed at Serial No.33 from the VJ-NT category. While submitting his preferences, it was stated by the petitioner that he would prefer Government Medical College, Akola at Serial No.1 and Dr. R. N. Cooper Municipal General Hospital, Mumbai at Serial No.2. Initially cut of marks were fixed at 265 but on 12/3/2022 the same were reduced to 210. On 7/4/2022 against Serial No.34 the petitioner 's name was shown with the note "choice not available ". Same was the position in the case of the respondent no.3 who was at Serial No.54 and against his name too, it was stated that the "choice not available ". This position of the select list continued on 26/4/2022. On 6/5/2022 in the selection list it was stated against the name of the petitioner at Serial No.34 that he was "not willing to process ". The respondent no.3 who shown at Serial No.54 was granted admission in the subject DNB Surgery at Dr. R. N. Cooper Municipal General Hospital, Mumbai. Being aggrieved by the refusal to grant admission to the petitioner and the said seat having been granted to the respondent no.3, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging non-inclusion of his name in the final selection list dtd. 6/5/2022 and grant of that seat to the respondent no.3.

(3.) Shri Mohammad Ateeque, learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to the aforesaid facts submitted that the petitioner was more meritorious than the respondent no.3 for the reason that the petitioner was shown at Serial No.33 in the State merit list while the respondent no.3 was placed at Serial No.48 therein. In the selection lists published on 7/4/2022 and 26/4/2022 the petitioner 's name was shown at Serial No.34 while the name of the respondent no.3 was shown at Serial No.54. On those two dates it was made clear that the choices given by the petitioner and the respondent no.3 were not available. However to the surprise of the petitioner despite being more meritorious, he was not granted admission as per the choice given by him and instead the respondent no.3 who was less meritorious than the petitioner was granted admission. The reason indicated as per remark "not willing to process " could not have been the basis for refusing admission to the petitioner. Inviting attention to the Information Brochure published by the State CHS PG Cell, Mumbai and various clauses thereof, it was submitted that it was not stated in the Information Brochure that if the willingness option was not exercised, the admission would be denied. In other words, the petitioner had been denied admission in a manner contrary to the Information Brochure by holding him not eligible for the mop-up round. Since the seat in the subject of DNB Surgery at Dr. R. N. Cooper Municipal General Hospital, Mumbai was available on 26/4/2022, it ought to have been offered to the petitioner first as he was more meritorious than the respondent no.3. It was thus submitted that the petitioner was deprived of being admitted at the said seat for no justifiable reason. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to the decision in Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. vs. SLL-SML(Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 3814 to urge that the admission process ought to have been conducted in accordance with the Information Brochure and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 could not have acted in a manner not stipulated by the Information Brochure. It was thus prayed that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.