STATE OF ASSAM Vs. JIBANJYOTI BAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4267/2K, 4669/2K, 4534/2K and 4358/2K directing the appellants to admit the respondents in MDBS/ BDSi course in the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College, Guwahati, for the academic session 1999-2000 depending upon the availability of seats.

(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of these appeals briefly are that admissions of students to MBBS/BDS course in the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College, Guwahati are regulated by a set of Executive Instructions made by the Government of Assam by notification dated 16.58.1996 called the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Reflation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1996"). A common entrance examination was held in accordance with the Rules. 1996. for candidates of the State of Assam. The respondents in these writ appeals took the said common entrance examination and where placed in the waiting list of candidates recommended by ths Selection Board against serial Nos. 3.4. 5,. 7. 8 and 9. Some candidates selected for admission did not turn up for admission, and as a: result some of the seats fell vacant. In the said vacant seats, respondents have been denied admission and the State Government in relaxation of the Rules has allotted eight vacant seats in the MBBS Course in three different Medical Colleges of Assam to the State of Arunachal Pnadesh. The respondents filed Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4267/2K. 4358/2K, 4534/2K and 4669/2K under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and by impugned judgments and orders, the learned Single Judge has directed admission of the respondents in the MBBS/BDS course for the academic session 1999-2000 depending upon the availability of seats. The appellants filed Review Application No. 101 / 2K against the judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4358/2K, but the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals;

(3.) Mr B.C. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the wait-listed candidates recommended by the Selection Board are admitted to vacant seats;under the proviso to Rule 5 and the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996. But the Government has the power to relax the provisions of the said provisions to Rules 5 and 6 under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996, if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do. In exercise of such power undar Rule 9, the Government of Assam has considered it necessary or expedient to relax the provisions of the said two provisos to Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules. 1996. and allotted the eight vacant seats in the MBBS course for the session 1999-2000 to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Mr Das further submitted that the said decision to relax the provisions of the two provisos to Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, 1996, was taken by the State Cabinet and the reason given in the Cabinet Memorandum was that the relaxation was necessary to maintain friendly relationship with the neighbouring States from whom requests have been received for allotment of more seats. According to Mr Das, such relaxation of the two provisos to Rules 5 and 6 was not inconsistent with the other provisions of the Rules. 1996. Mr Das contended that the aforesaid relaxation by the State Government has not been challenged in the writ petitions. In support of his submission, Mr Das relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar SharmaVs.State of Punjab, (1997) 10 SCC 298, and Ashok Kumar UppalVs.State of J&K, (1998) 4 SCC 179, wherein the Supreme Court has discussed at length the power of relaxation of the Government under the Recruitment Rules.