SAMEER HARSHEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of W.P. No. 2121/99 (Dr. A. Rajiv Sunny v. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No. 956/99 (Ku. Bhawana Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others) and W.P. No. 1181/99 (Swapnil Jakheria v. State of M.P. and others).

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the petitions are that Dr. Sameer Harshe, petitioner of W.P. No. 1627/99 according to his merit has been admitted to the post-graduate diploma course in ENT in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Medical College, Jabalpur. He was given the said diploma course in the first counselling. According to him because of availability of the degree course in ENT he is entitled to be given the degree course. According to the petitioner he give a notice demanding justice on 11-3-1999 requesting the respondents to give the said seat to him but as nothing has been done in his favour, he was required to file the petition. According to Dr. Harshe about 290 post-graduate degree seats on clinical side are available. According to him 132 seats for P.G. Diploma in various subjects are available. The details of the reservation are given in paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the petition. Dr. Harshe appeared in Jan., 1998 examination and at the time of first counselling no degree seats was available to the petitioner therefore, left with no other choice he had to opt for diploma in ENT knows as D.L.O. He was admitted to the course and joined the same on 1-5-1998. It is submitted by the petitioner that the second counselling could take place before second July of the year but in the present case the second counselling was to take place in Feb., 1999. The petitioner's claim is that as at the time of first counselling the seat was not available and as it has now fallen vacant he is entitled to the degree seat. In his submission the respondents cannot be permitted to play with the future of the petitioner and they are bound to allot the seat to him. According to the petitioner the said degree seat had fallen vacant on 22-3-1999. The seat must be allotted to him. The respondents have filed their return and have submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the degree seat. The respondents submit that since the petitioner is prosecuting his studies in the diploma course, he is not entitled to change in accordance with the rules therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. Referring to the rules it was further submitted that the petitioner is forbidden for a period of 3 years from making any change either in course or in the subject or institution. They have prayed that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) In the matter of W.P. No. 956/99 on the identical grounds the petitioner-Dr. Ku. Bhawana Tiwari submits that she was allotted seat (D.O.M.S.) in the first counselling but as the degree seat in Opthalmology is available she deserves to be admitted in degree course. According to her, she is entitled to change the course and as she is not seeking any change either in the subject or in the institution the respondents are duty bound to allot the seat to her.