MISS. ALUPTA AKANKSHA BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of notice through Special Messenger and date of appearance being expired, there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the sole contesting opposite party. Learned counsel for the State on previous occasion also declined to represent the opposite party no.2, for which this Court was constrained to issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioner. Therefore, this matter is decided only hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the submissions of Shri U.K. Sahoo, the learned Additional Standing Counsel.

(2.) Heard Shri Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri U.K. Sahoo, learned State Counsel.

(3.) The factual scenario available in the case and for the particular pleading of the petitioner that the petitioner is an applicant pursuant to an advertisement for filling up the seats in the Medical Colleges; through NEET conducted at centrally level. Petitioner being a physically handicapped candidate as per the scheme of advertisement, the petitioner was required to produce P.C. certificate and this apart following a further notice vide Annexure-2, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates were required to be presented before the Committee of Doctors, set up by the Competent Authority. Even though the petitioner was provided required medical certificate yet by virtue of the notice under Annexure-2, the physical handicapped candidates involving the NEET rank holders for the purpose of W.P.(C) No. 3631 of 2018 admission in P.C. category for MBBSBDS were directed to attend a Medical Board at C.T.-II, SCB medical College, Cuttack on 14.07.201715.07.2017. Petitioner's further case is that pursuant to issuance of a notification vide Annexure-3 indicating that the decision of the Board for above purpose shall remain binding pursuant to the notice under Annexure-2. As a consequence, petitioner along with others were placed before the Board constituted for the purpose before the Committee as indicated in the Annexure-3 and the list of eligible P.C. candidates was also prepared and circulated vide Annexure-4 indicating the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 10 therein. It is at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that after the petitioner took admission in the MKCG Medical College, Berhampur and while she was continuing with her education, she was surprised to receive a letter vide Annexure-5 asking her to appear before the AIIMS Authority for another health check up on the question of physical handicapness. But however, the AIIMs authority declined to examine the petitioner for the petitioner already examined by the competent Board. Petitioner has been again troubled by virtue of the letter under Annexure-7 in pursuant to a development vide Annexure-6 asking her to appear before the Standing Medical Board in the Office of the CDMO, Ganjam for examination of her health status. There also appears another communication vide Annexure-8 directing the petitioner once again to appear before the constituted committee in the Office Chamber of DMET (O), Heads of Department Building, 1st floor, on 7.02018 at 11.30 A.M. It is at this stage of the matter, petitioner approached this Court challenging the repeated action of the opposite parties asking the petitioner to appear before the different authority for health check up, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already been examined by a competent Board following the scheme of the advertisement. Taking this Court to the entire development, Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a candidate is examined by a competent Medical Board in terms of the advertisement and the notice vide Annexure-2 and further for the condition attached in Annexure-3 clearly indicating that the report of the Board remain final, there was no question of putting the petitioner again for physical test. It is in the above premises, Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the correspondences/directions vide Annexures-5, 6, 78 are all bad in law and should be interfered with and set aside.