GEETIKA SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following facts are not in dispute before me that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were candidates for the Pre-Medical Test conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal which was held in the year 2001. The petitioner belongs to unreserved category and to Sainik class. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were alloted roll Nos. 635467 and 628579 respectively. After the test the petitioner was placed at waiting list No. 13 whereas the respondent No. 4 was placed at waiting list No. 8. While the petitioner's father was an ex-military person domiciled at Indore, Madhya Pradesh, the father of respondent No. 4 is an in-service military personal. The petitioner was called for counselling on 12.6.2002 at M.G. Medical College, Bhopal. Undisputably, on that date one MBBS seat in R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain and one BDS seat in Autonomous Dental College, Indore were available for allotment. The MBBS seat was alloted to the candidate who was at waiting list No. 7 and the BDS seat was alloted to the respondent No. 4, Vikas Mishra, who is the son of Nagendra Nath Mishra, who is in-service military personal, Sainik No. 8372517-M from Army Postal Service, 36 Divisional, Postal Unit. As per rules such an in-service military personal was also required to submit domicile of Madhya Pradesh from 1.1.2001 upto the date of admission. The domicile certificate in such a case has required to be signed and issued by the concerned Commanding Officer in the prescribed proforma as per the Rules of Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules, 2001.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the certificate of domicile submitted by respondent No. 4 on the grounds that the same was not issued by the competant Commanding Officer and the father of the petitioner was not posted in Madhya Pradesh till the date of admission. As per the submission of the petitioner date of admission is the actual date of admission and as per the respondents it is the date of submitting admission form for particular examination and course.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that on the date of admission i.e. on 18.6.2002 the father of respondent No. 4 was not posted in M.P. and was transferred on 31.5.2002, therefore, the admission of the respondent No. 4 is not in accordance with the rules and is liable to be set aside. In reply learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that till the date of first counselling the father of respondent No. 4 was posted in M.P. and if there was delay on account of some reason in the counselling the admission of the respondent No. 4 Vikas Mishra cannot be treated as illegal or contrary to the rules and submitted that the respondent No. 4 has rightly been given admission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after perusal of the record and after considering the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. In the matter of military personnel and employees of the central government and those who are occupying transferable post through out the country, the date of admission of the students cannot be considred as the actual date of admission but the date of admission has to be considered on the date when he applied for admission and submitted application form as per the advertisements because after filing the application the employees may be transferred to other States and in that case the students admission cannot be cancelled on the ground that he has lost the domicile of that particular State. Otherwise in such a case the children of such Central Govt, employees cannot get admission in any State in India.