SAURIN ROHIT SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above Petition has been filed by a student who has completed his degree course in Medicine i.e. MBBS and who is seeking admission to the postgraduate course in Radiodignosis (Radiology) in the Respondent No.3College which comes under the aegis of the Respondent No.4Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges. The above Petition exemplifies how a meritorious student has been denied admission to the said postgraduate course.

(3.) The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the issue are as under :The Petitioner, who is having a degree of MBBS, appeared for the Common Entrance Test (CET) of 2009 conducted by the Respondent No.4 i.e. the Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges for admission to the various Post Graduate Courses in the unaided private medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The brochure interalia published by the Respondent No.4Association contains the information as regards the programme schedule for the said Common Entrance Test and the admissions thereafter. The said brochure also contains the information as regards the seats available for the said postgraduate courses in the colleges which are the members of the Respondent No.4Association. The said information is contained in Annexure "A" and "B" of the said brochure. In so far as Respondent No.3College is concerned, as regards the subject of Radiology, two seats were shown and an asterisk mark was shown against the said seats thereby indicating that the Respondent No.3College has applied to the Medical Council of India (MIC) for recognition of the course and the same was under consideration of the MCI. The Petitioner had appeared for the said examination and secured 230 marks out of 300 and was 26th in the merit list out of about 500 candidates. The procedure for admission, in so far as the colleges which are the members of the Respondent No.4Association is concerned, is that there are two rounds of admission viz. first round and second round and thereafter if the seat falls vacant, the concerned college can fill it at the college level. It appears that the first merit list for the first round was issued. However, in the first round no seats of the Respondent No.3College were considered in view of the fact that the Respondent No.3College received recognition for the courses mentioned in Annexure "A" of the brochure, amongst which Radiology was one of the courses, after the first round. It appears that between the first and the merit list for the second round, the Respondent No.3College got recognition for the postgraduate courses as per Annexure "A" of the brochure from the Respondent No.2MCI. Hence in the merit list for the second round, the Petitioner's name was appearing at Serial No.3 for the course of MDRadiology. As per the schedule of the programme for admissions it was mentioned in the brochure that the last date for taking admission for the said courses after the issuance of the merit list was 23rd May 2009. As per the provisional seat matrix which was issued by the Respondent No.4, the said two seats were earmarked for Non Resident Indian (NRI) and NT1. The Petitioner had approached the Respondent No.3College on 22nd May 2009 along with Demand Draft. It is the case of the Petitioner that on the said day it was for the first time informed to him that though the Petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.3 of the merit list for the second round for the course of Radiology seat, the said seat could not be given to the Petitioner as the said two seats were meant for the NRI and NT1 category. It appears that the Petitioner immediately on 22nd May 2009 addressed a letter to the Principal of Respondent No. 3College that he had visited the Respondent No.3College on 22nd May 2009 and sought admission, as the admission was to be taken within the prescribed time limit, however, the admission was denied to him. The Petitioner by the said letter requested the Principal to look into the matter and do the needful. It is the case of the Petitioner that though the said letter was received by the Respondent No.3College, the College refused to give an acknowledgement of the said letter. The Petitioner, therefore, on the same day sent a email to the Respondent No.4Association, and to the Principal of the Respondent No.3 and also to Dr.Vasant Pawar, the Secretary of the Respondent No.3 to the effect that that though the Petitioner had gone to seek admission, he was denied the same. The Petitioner thereafter on 23rd May 2009 also sent a copy of the said letter dated 22nd May 2009 by speed post to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 25th May 2009 to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 recording all that was stated in the earlier letter and email and requested the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to look into the matter and do the needful. Though the said letter was accepted by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 no steps were taken and no reply was given to the said letter. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was telephonically informed and also through the website of Respondent No.4 he came to know that the last date for taking admission is extended up to 28th May 2009. The Petitioner therefore along with the necessary documents and Demand Draft as mentioned in Clause 15.12 of the brochure went to the Respondent No.3College to secure admission but he was kept waiting from 10 a.m on the said day and ultimately the Respondent No.3 College refused to give admission to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that another student who was in the merit list for the second round i.e. Pooja Kharbanda, who had applied for Ophthalmology MS and who was Ranked 7 in the merit list was also waiting with the Petitioner to take admission but was denied the same. The Petitioner, therefore, once again addressed a letter to the Respondent No.4 complaining against the act of the Respondent No.3 College of not giving admission to the persons whose names appear in the merit list. The Petitioner has also sent an email to the Respondent No.4Association stating thereby that he was denied admission and requested the Respondent No.4 to look into the matter immediately. It is therefore the case of the Petitioner that though he was 26th in merit in the CET examination held by the Respondent No.4Association and his name was appearing at Serial No.3 in the merit list for the second round issued by the Respondent No.4Association, the Petitioner was denied admission for the reasons best known to the Respondent No.3.