NILAMANI MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for the State representing opposite parties 1 to 3, Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 and 6 and Mr. R. C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition has called in questions the legality of fixing the cut-off date as 31-3-2009 in Clause-1. 3 of the prospectus for admission to Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses at S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to give admission to the petitioner as against one of the four seats in the said course. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner made an application to appear in the entrance test which was scheduled to be held on 26-6-2009. Such application was made by the petitioner on 21-6-2009. The last date for acceptance of the application was fixed as 22-6-2009. A merit list was published in which the petitioner was placed in serial No. 2 and was called to attend the counselling which was held on 4-7-2009. It is alleged that during the counselling, the petitioner's name was not called and on enquiry he could not ascertain the reason therefor. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party No. 3 in not giving him admission to one of the seats in Super Speciality Course, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given admission even though he secured rank No. 2 in the merit list on the ground that he did not acquire the eligible qualification by the cutoff date as fixed in Clause 1.3 of the prospectus. He further submits that though it is given out in the prospectus that the applications from ineligible candidates will be rejected summarily, the petitioner's application form having been accepted and he being issued with the admit card, permitted to appear in the entrance examination, given rank No. 2 in the merit list and called for counselling, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are estopped from not allowing the petitioner to take admission to one of the four seats on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible as per the eligible criteria as have been stated in the counter affidavit. On 3-9-2009, as it was submitted before this Court that the opposite party No. 4 has vacated the seat and the said seat is lying vacant, to which the opposite party No. 4 was admitted, this Court passed an interim order directing that the said seat shall not be filled up, which is still lying vacant.