PANKAJ KUMAR BATHNOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS instant writ petition is directed against the impugned selection list for MBBS Courses in the State of Meghalaya for the year 2012 -13.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case in nut shell is that ''the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) for setting aside Impugned Selection of the candidates for the MBBS Course for the Year 2012 -13 in respect of the State of Meghalaya published in the web -site of the Respondent No. 2 dated 3rd September 2012, whereby the respondent No. 2 had selected the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 as the candidates for the said Course being lesser in marks than the petitioner, which is highly arbitrary, illegal, malafide and unfair and also prayed for passing necessary direction to the Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner for the said Course and other reliefs as deem fit and proper considering the nature of the case. The factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioner had applied admission for MBBS Course for the year 2012 -13 in the State of Meghalaya conducted by Respondent No. 2 in spite of he being secured the highest marks but was not selected for the said Course. The petitioner also submitted that, there were some candidates who did not appear for the written examination but they were selected for the said Course, in total disregards to the rules and regulations as well as in highly bias manner, arbitrary, illegally and with malafide manner, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and facts and as such prayed for quashing of the said selection of the candidates for MBBS Courses in the State of Meghalaya for the year 2012 -13. Therefore, it is a fit case for this Hon 'ble Court to issue a writ directing the authority to select the petitioner for the said Course. Hence, this petition. ''

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R Gurung, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the State respondent submitted that, the petitioner never applied through State quota and he had actually applied for open quota. Therefore, respondents who secured less marks than the petitioner cannot be equated or considered with the candidates who secured less marks in the State quota. The learned State counsel further contended that there are nine seats allotted for the State of Meghalaya, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not correct, so the petition may be dismissed.