B BHULAKSHMI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with the 3rd respondent, having obtained degree of MBBS, appeared for the Post-Graduation Medical Entrance Examination for the academic year 1998-99. The petitioner got 49th Rank whereas the 3nd respondent got 45th Rank. The petitioner belongs to Group 'A' whereas the 3rd respondent belong to Group 'D' of Backward Class community. Both of them belong to the Andhra University area and have applied for admission into the MD course with specialisation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Both of them have also opted to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam as their first preference. In pursuance of the counselling conducted for the admissions both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent appeared on 21-10-1988 and they were allotted seats in MD course of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. However, it appears that one Dr. Hemalatha, who belongs to Group 'D' of BC Category got 32nd Rank and was allotted a seat in MD course of Obstestrics and Gynaecology in Guntur Medical College, Guntur under the open category. As she belongs to BC 'D' Category she claimed preferential allotment as per her option to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, she was reallotted a seat in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. Apprehending that the petitioner may be disturbed she made a representation to the Selection Committee stating that she belongs to BC 'A' Category and she is the 1st Ranker in the category and whereas the 3rd respondent belongs to BC 'D' Category and if a candidate is to be disturbed to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha, who belongs to BC 'D' Category a candidate belonging to the same group is to be disturbed. The Selection Committee, it appears, reallotted seat to the 3rd respondent at Guntur Medical College, Guntur in order to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha, who had secured a higher rank as she was entitled for such preferential treatment. Thereafter, the Registrar of the 1 st respondent passed the impugned order alleged to be on the representation of the 3rd respondent. By the impugned order the Registrar of the 1st respondent shifted the petitioner from the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam to Guntur Medical College, Guntur and the 3rd respondent from the Guntur Medical College, Guntur to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. The said action of the Registrar is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the Registrar is without jurisdiction as the process of selection and allotment of the seats are completely vested in the Selection Committee and if there is any mistake or omission on the part of the Selection Committee it should be represented to the Selection Committee and the order passed by the Selection Committee shall be final and binding on the candidates and cannot be questioned, more so, after the closure of the admissions. It is also contended that the order is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice as the order was being passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Counsel that there are four seats reserved in respect of the BC community. The said four seats are further sub-divided among the different groups and as per the said division one seat is available to BC 'A'; two seats to BC 'B' and one seat to BC 'D' Category. Therefore, the allotment should be as per the said sub-division. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that in respect of BC 'A' group the petitioner is the only candidate that was allotted a seat. The learned Counsel also contended that Dr. Hemalatha, who belongs to Group 'D' of BC category got a seat on merit in the open category by virtue of her higher rank. If a reallotment is to be effected as per her preferential option, then a candidate belonging to the same group is to be disturbed and not a candidate of a different group. The learned Counsel also contended that had Dr. Hemalatha opted under the BC Category the 3rd respondent would not have got the chance of selection at all being lower in merit when compared to Dr. Hemalatha, who secured 32nd Rank. The learned Counsel also contended that after completing the admissions, classes have started on 11-1-1999 and according to Rule 12 of the Rules of Admission issued by the University of Health Sciences, the admissions shall be closed one month after the commencement of the course and no order can be passed after one month of the closure of the admissions. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed on 16-2-1999, which was passed after the closure of the admissions and therefore it is invalid. The learned Counsel also contended that even under the provisions of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 it is only the University that has got the power and not the Registrar and therefore the order is without jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the University, on the other hand, opposed the contention of the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order was passed in terms of G.O. Ms. No.996. In accordance with the said GO the available seats for Open Category are to be filled first on merit and then only the seats reserved for various categories are to be filled. In the process, however, if a candidate belongs to the reserved category got the allotment of a seat in the open category on merit that candidate will have the option to choose a seat, which is reserved for the reserved category. In the said process, it is stated that Dr. Hemalatha, who was selected in the open category in the Guntur Medical College, Guntur was given the shifting to the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, where two seats are reserved for the BC Category. As there are only two seats reserved for the BC Category at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam and two candidates were already allotted seats under the BC Category one of the candidates was required to be shifted to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur. In the process a less meritorious candidate has to be shifted to Guntur Medical College, Guntur. But due to inadvertence, the Selection Committee has shifted the 3rd respondent. The said mistake of the Selection Committee was corrected by the Registrar after considering the representations made by both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As their representations were considered and an order was passed there is no need to give any further notice before passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel also referred to the provisions of the University Act and contended that the impugned order passed by the Registrar is within his jurisdiction.