KUCHIBHOTAL SRIVATSA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Medical Sciences. His prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents herein, more particularly respondent No.3 in not allotting seat for "DM Pediatrics Critical Care" to him in the light of availability of two seats in respondent No.2 - University, i.e., Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER), which arose owing to the fact that no eligible candidates were sponsored by the Government - State/Central Services, and consequently directing the respondents to allot one of the two seats reserved for "DM Pediatrics Critical Care" to the petitioner in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER).

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner appeared for Institute of National Importance Super Specialty Entrance Test (INI-SS) for DM, M.Ch. and MD Hospital Administration Course January,2022 Session conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Out of five seats, which are available for the subject course, two sponsored seats are available for in-service candidates and one seat for Open Category with the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) / respondent No.2 and two other Open Category seats are available at Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondichery. The petitioner secured 4th rank in the merit list of open category candidates. Since there are only three seats available in Open Category, the petitioner has not been able to secure admission in any of the above said two Colleges and has been placed at wait list candidate No.1. On completion of the admission process, the two seats reserved for sponsored in-service candidates at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) has remained vacant for lack of eligible candidates sponsored by the Central or State Government. It is on one of these two unfilled seats the petitioner is claiming his entitlement and consequentially praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus.

(3.) According to Mr. Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 wherein it has been held that even when a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, despite none of the respondents have not its offices or residences within the territorial limits of the High Court. This argument is advanced in opposition to the petitioner's preliminary objection that in the prospectus, it was mentioned that all disputes with regard to any matter shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only. In our considered opinion, in view of the decision of Nawal Kishore Sharma cited supra and also for the reason that a nonstatutory prospectus issued by the examination conducting body cannot curtail or takeaway the jurisdiction of the High Court conferred on it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate Writ on the subject matter brought before this Court, denying remedy of approaching the Court, having jurisdiction in the matter, would against the basic spirit of the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.