STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JITENDRA KISHOR BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the letters patent appeals are connected; therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.Respondent Jitendra Kishore Bhargava filed a first petition - W. P. No. 3111 of 1995 before this Court claiming admission to the Post-Graduate Course and the learned single Judge in that petition passed order dated 17-10-1995 relying on Rule XI (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post-Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules of 1995) that the petitioner should file a representation before the State Government along with certified copy of this order and the State Government shall decide the representation within two weeks after the presentation of the representation by a speaking order regarding subsequent counseling in terms of above Rule XI (i) holding of second counselling even after Second July, if there is no other impediment in the way. Tough it was contended before the learned single Judge that the representation was made to the Director of medical Education but the learned Judge found that the representation does not contain any endorsement forwarding copy to the State Government. It was found that there was no representation made to the State Government. Lastly, the learned Judge held that State Government has power under the Proviso to Rule XI (i) of the Rules of 1995 of have subsequent counselling even after 2nd July. Therefore, the learned judge directed the petitioner to make representation and also directed the State Government to fill the unfulfilled vacancies to Post-Graduate course by second counselling in view of Proviso to Rule XI (i) of the Rules of 1995. Against this order of the learned single Judge dated 17-10-1995 in W.P.No. 3111 of 1995, the State Government has preferred this L. P. A. which is registered as L.P.A. No. 213 of 1995. It was admitted for hearing by this Court on 7-2-1996 and was directed to be connected with L.P.A. No. 10 of 1996.

(2.) L.P.A. No. 10 of 1996 arose out of the writ petition filed subsequently by the respondent Jitendra Kishore Bhargava (same petitioner) and it came to be registered as W. P. No. 3831 of 1995. The Writ Petition No. 3831 of 1995 was decided on 9-1-1996. In this writ petition, grievance of the respondent (petitioner therein) was that in spite of order passed in W.P. No. 3111 of 1995 dated 17-10-1995, the State Government did not dispose of the petitioner's (respondent herein) representation and no order had been passed granting admission and therefore the W.P. NO. 3831 of 1995 was filed in which the learned single Judge by order dated 9-1-1996 directed the State Government and its authorities to hold a counselling in accordance with the Rules within fifteen days. Thereafter a contempt petition was filed; however, notices were discharged as the learned single Judge found that the Principal Secretary did not wilfully disobey the orders of this Court. The State Government in its reply took the stand that admission in Post-Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges cannot be done after 2nd July. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the learned single Judge brushed aside all those objections and directed as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this order of the learned single Judge dated 9-1-1996, the State Government has preferred L. P. A. No. 10 of 1996. Since both the LPAs arise primarily out of order passed by the learned single Judge dated 17-10-1995 in W.P.No. 3111 of 1995, they are taken up together for disposal.

(3.) The principal submission of the learned counsel for the State is that according to Rule XI of the Admission Rules of 1995, no subsequent counselling is ordinarily permitted after 2nd July except in special circumstances as provided in Proviso to Rule XI (i); but it is submitted that in view of series of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, consistent view is that no admission should be granted disturbing the time schedule fixed and their Lordships have taken a very strong exception to this. We would like to refer those decisions at appropriate places but before doing so, it would be relevant to refer relevant rules of the Rules of 1995 for the disposal of the present LPAs. Rule 10 deals with 'counselling' and sub-rule (v) of Rule X talks about the seats falling vacant and the manner in which they are to be filled. Clause/sub-rule (v) of Rule X of the Rules 1995 reads as under :-