SOMNATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an in-service candidate, who belongs to OBC category appeared in Pre. P. G. Test, 2008 and had secured 117. 95 marks out of 200 marks. He has been working for last five years in Primary Health Centre at village Pagarkhurd in the district of Satna and the said village, as pleaded, is approximately 50 Kms. away from the district headquarters of Satna. It is averred that said village does not have newspaper circulation or internet/mobile/telephone connection. When the result of Pre. P. G. , 2008 was declared, the petitioner though was declared qualified, could not know his result till 28. 5. 2008. Jhe result of the examination was declared on 22. 5. 2008 and the first counseling was scheduled from 27. 5. 2008.

(2.) THE petitioner, as setforth, came to know about his result only on 28. 5. 2008 when he came to Satna to a Cyber Cafe. On downloading his result, he found that he was declared as qualified but in the said result marks were not shown in the internet site. He had not received any information of the result nor was he aware of the date of first counseling. After getting information on 28. 5. 2008 he rushed to Bhopal where he got the information that he had secured 117. 95 marks and his merit position was 42 amongst the in-service candidates of OBC category. Had he been aware of the publication of the result and holding of counselling on 27. 5. 2008 to 01. 6. 2008, he would have got allocation in a very good subject, but as he was not aware of such information, he could not reach on or before the date of first counselling. Accordingly, he met the Director, Medical Education, the respondent No. 2 herein, and was informed that he would get the seat as per his merit in the second counselling scheduled to be held on 8. 6. 2006. He also requested the authorities to give him sponsorship letter which is a pre-requisite for in-service candidates to appear in the counselling, but the authorities refused to give him sponsorship letter on some pretext or the other. Despite this the petitioner reposed faith in the respondent No. 2 and waited for the second counselling.

(3.) AS averred, he appeared in the second counselling on 08. 6. 2008 and requested the respondents to allot a seat as per Rule 1. 20 (8) of the Medical and dental Post Graduate Entrance (Conduct of Examination and Admission) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) but, to his utter surprise, the respondent no. 2 refused- to allot a seat to him on the ground that in the notification dated 07. 6. 2008 published in the newspaper on 08. 6. 2008 it was made clear that the students who had remained absent in the first counselling, would not be allowed to get the seat in the second counselling. The petitioner put forth his stand that due to unavoidable circumstances he could not attend the first counselling and, therefore, he was entitled to participate in the counselling but the respondents declined to accept the explanation as a result of which he has been denied a seat in Post Graduation course despite his merit position in the second counselling. It is averred that as per rule 1. 20 (8) he was eligible to appear in the second counselling and also eligible to get post Graduate M. D/ms seat but the said benefit has been denied to him.