DINESH GYANANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under section 2 (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeih Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4040/2005.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that after passing the MBBS Examination in March 2002, the appellant appeared in Pre -P.G. Test 2005 conducted by the Professional Examination Board for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses in the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and secured 133.99 marks out of total 200 marks and was placed at Serial No. 272 in the waiting list of general category. For the first counselling, the appellant was not called and the candidates up to Serial No. 269 in the waiting list for general category were called. Hence, the candidates in the waiting list from Serial No. 270 onwards had to wait for their turn for second counselling. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 22.5.2005 calling general category candidates in the waiting list from Serial No. 270 to 500 for filling up the vacant seats by Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses which became available after admission was over on the basis of first counselling. The notification dated 22.5.2005 was, however, challenged in Writ Petition No. 3893/2005 by Dr. Amita Dhakad and others and on 23.5.2005 the learned Single Judge directed that the matter be listed for admission and final disposal on 21.6.2006 by which time, a counter affidavit be filed by the State and further directed as an interim measure that the petitioners in the said writ petition shall be permitted to appear in the counselling and given the allocation but shall not be admitted in the Colleges. Soon thereafter, the Directorate of Medical Education, M.P., issued another notification on 28.5.2005 superseding the earlier notification dated 22.5.2005 and by the said notification not only waiting list candidates were called from Serial No. 270 to 500 but all interested candidates selected in Pre -P.G. Entrance Test 2005 were allowed to participate in the proceedings for re -allocation on the available seats. In the annexure to the notification, a total number of 42 seats, i.e. 20 seats of Degree and 24 seats of Diploma, were shown to be available for Post Graduate Courses. In the annexure to the notification, it was also stated that all such candidates who have already been allotted seats in the first stage counselling and are studying therein but were desirous change of subject, course and college and all such candidates, who appeared in the first stage of counselling but have not selected the subject and college because of unavailability of seats of their choice on the subject, course and college can also participate in the process of counselling.

(3.) MR . Rajendra Shrivastava learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 21 (4) of the Rules expressly provided that a candidate admitted to a particular subject, course and college will not be entitled for any change on any ground and Migration/Transfer/Mutual Transfer of students undergoing any postgraduate course Degree/ Diploma shall not be permitted by University or any other authority without the prior recommendation of the State Government and approval of Medical Council of India. He further submitted that it has also been provided in Rule 20 (11) (d) of the Rules that in case eligible candidates are not available in SC, ST and OBC categories, the vacant seats of said reserved categories shall be filled up by the eligible general category candidates. He submitted that the learned Single Judge held in the impugned order that the candidates who have been already admitted to particular subjects, courses and colleges were not entitled for any change on any ground and that the appellant should have been called for the counselling and had he been called, he would have been able to select the particular stream. He submitted that once the learned Single Judge recorded the aforesaid findings, he should have directed the authority to grant admission to the appellant and should not have only granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/ -.