MELVIN KARL LUDWIG SEQUEIRA Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Advocate for respondents waive service.

(2.) THE petitioner has passed H. S. C. examination securing 86. 66% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He applied for admission to the Professional Degree College under the prescribed Common Application Form with order of preference for M. B. B. S. followed by B. D. S. . In case of candidates in the General Category, the list of eligible candidates was displayed and the name of the petitioner figured in the said list of eligible candidates. However, after the admissions were finalized and the final lists were put up, the petitioner was not able to get admission either in M. B. B. S. or B. D. S. and his number on the waiting list remained at serial number 6 after the last review of admission was done before the cut-off date 14th August 1996. THEre are also seats available in the All India quota which are required to be filled after entrance examination and the candidates who are selected in such entrance test are required to report to different Colleges for admission under the said quota. In case of Goa Medical College and Goa Dental College after the said All India quota was filled, one seat in the M. B. B. S. Course and five seats is the B. D. S. Course remained vacant due to non-reporting of All India quota candidates. As against the said five seats in the B. D. S. Course five candidates who were on the waiting lists were given admission on 1st October 1996. THE number of the petitioner in the waiting list, as already stated was at serial number 6 which means that after all these five wait-listed candidates above him had been accommodated, the petitioner was at serial number 1 in the waiting list. In the only vacancy which was available in the M. B. B. S. Course on account of non-reporting of All India quota candidates, a student from B. D. S. Course, who had given first preference as M. B. B. S. Course, was accommodated against the said vacancy. THE result of transfer of the said candidate Kumari Rebello Gayle from B. D. S. Course to M. B. B. S. Course was that a seat had fallen vacant in the B. D. S. Course. THE petitioner stakes his claim in this petition against the said seat and seeks directions from this Court for his admission against the said vacancy. THE petitioner's case is that he had represented to the Vice Chancellor as well as the Registrar but even his representation was not accepted by the Registrar.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mrs. Agni, appearing on behalf of the University, took us through the relevant Rules in Common Prospectus applicable in that behalf. She pointed out that Rule 4.11 contemplates that admission shall be done as per the schedule and procedure given in the prospectus and the University has strictly adhered to the Rules contained in the Prospectus while denying admission to the petitioner. According to her, the cut-off date in respect of General Category candidates is 14th August 1996 and the resultant seat which has fallen vacant on account of transfer of one candidate from B. D. S. Course to M. B. B. S. Course would fall under the General Category in respect of which cut-off date fixed is 14th August 1996 and such vacancy cannot be filled in terms of the Prospectus after 14th August 1996. For this submission learned advocate for the University respondent no. 1 relies upon Rule 4.29. She also pointed out that the candidate Kumari Rebello Gayle had in fact been admitted in the B. D. S. Course in the General Category and as such on account of her transfer from the B. D. S. Course to the M. B. B. S. Course, though as a result of non-reporting of one of the candidates from the All India quota, yet her vacancy in question would partake the nature of vacancy in the General Category which would be covered under Rule 4.29 and such vacancy would not fall under Rule 4.30. In respect of Lesly Pinto's case (Writ Petition No.208 of 1996) which was decided by a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Khandeparkar, J.) was a party, it was pointed out that the said case can be distinguished on facts and would have no application so far as the facts in this case are concerned. According to her, the distinguishing feature of the said case is that there was no cut-off date for filling up the vacancies remaining in the seats reserved for the All India quota during the year 1995-96 and besides that a number of candidates had been admitted in the said case even at the end of the said academic session. In support of her submissions she has relied upon some Judgments, namely, Sandeep Barar and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 1313, G. Sumathi v. The Director of Medical Education, Madras and others, reported in A. I. R. 1993 Madras 328 and Miss Prabha Kalyandeo Verma v. The Nagpur University and others, reported in A. I. R. 1993 Bombay 147. In fact, if one goes through the said rulings, the same are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case with which we are concerned in this petition.