UMESH KUMAX TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of three petitions. These are Misc. Petition Nos. 584, 845 and 984, all of 1989. The common cause which links the three petitions is singular in that all of the petitioners have staked claim for admission albeit in different disciplines, to two years' diploma courses in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior.

(2.) PETITIONER Umesh Kumar Tripathi of Misc. Petition No. 584 of 1989 has not expressed preference for any particular discipline. His counsel has submitted that his claim to admission to any particular discipline may be determined in terms of the relevant rules according to relevant merit of different candidates. Petitioners Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta and Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta of Misc. Petition No. 845 of 1989 have, however, expressed their preference for the E.N.T. Course and similarly, Dr. Amitabh Shrivastava of Misc. Petition No. 984 of 1989, for Opthalmology course.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY , for the respondents, the controversy does not end that way. Because, the admitted position also is that out of 27 seats in diploma course in various disciplines, only 24 seats had been filled up. Today, before us in Court, two selection lists are produced. Those are captioned respectively (I) "One Year Diploma Course" and (II) "Two Year Diploma Course" for the year 1988. Shri Dudawat has conceded that list -I of One Year Diploma Course was only considered and admission of 24 students whose names figure in that list had been made. We do not understand why the Dean or College Council and the State Government found it necessary not to do anything else in the matter of filling up the other three seats. It cannot be denied that entitlement for admission in the diploma courses in various disciplines for the year 1988 was open to candidates pursuing not only One Year Diploma Course, but also Two Year Diploma Course. It cannot, therefore, be said that the seats had been duly "filled up" for the academic session 1988 and the petitioners have no standing before us to challenge the action of the respondents.