PIYUSH MADHUKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared in the Joint Admission Test for admission to the first year MDBS course in the Medical Colleges of the state. The result of the aforesaid test which was held sometime in the month of May, 2003 was declared in the newspapers on 12.7.03 and name of the writ petitioner (Piyush Madhukar) appeared in the select list of candidates called for interview. The interview which was scheduled to be held on 19.7.03 was deferred to 13.8.03. On the said date, the petitioner could not appear in the interview on account of illness and his attempts to be interviewed on a subsequent date not being successful he approached this court by filing WP 6765/03. This court by order dated 8.9.03 accepted the contentions of the petitioner and directed that the interview of the petitioner be held on 10.9.03. On the aforesaid date i.e. 10.9.03, the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and in the process that followed, an anomaly was detected in the Permanent Resident Certificate (P.R.C.) of the petitioner in so far as column pertaining to the name of the father of the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner, according to the Respondents, gave a statement in writing before the Interview Board to the effect that his father did not reside in Assam and except for his uncle, one Mohan Singh, who was working in Chandrapur from 1967, all his family members reside in Bihar. In the aforesaid statement, the petitioner had further stated that he had passed his Matriculation and Intermediate Examinations from Katihar in Bihar. Thereafter, by an order dated 30.9.03, the authority acting on the basis of the discrepancies in the PRC submitted by the petitioner as well as statement of the petitioner recorded in writing on 10.9.03, refused admission to the petitioner. On the next date i.e. 1.10.03, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, Medical Education enclosing a fresh PRC showing the name of the petitioner's father correctly. In the said representation dated 1.10.03, the petitioner prayed for an appropriate order from the Director of Medical Education for his admission in the first year MBBS course. As the aforesaid representation of the petitioner was not disposed of by the authority, the present writ application has been filed on 15.10.03 seeking intervention of this court so as to facilitate the admission of the petitioner, as aforesaid.

(2.) Mr. A.M. Buzorbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the challenge made in the present Writ application, has argued by referring to the statements made in the writ petition, that the discrepancies in the PRC, which was filed by the petitioner alongwith his admission form was on account of a clerical mistake committed by the issuing authority and that the petitioner was born in Chandrapur in the year 1980 and had lived there continuously except for the period 1993-1997 during which period the petitioner was in Bihar in connection with his studies. Learned Counsel has further argued that the statement made by the petitioner on 10.9.03, which has been relied upon in refusing admission to the petitioner, was obtained under coercion and the said statement was not voluntarily made. That apart, learned counsel has argued that though the petitioner was interviewed on 10.9.03, the result of the said interview i.e. whether the petitioner is eligible for admission or not should have been announced within a reasonable time before the deadline fixed by the Medical Council of India for medical admission i.e. 30.9.03. Instead, the respondents waited till the last date, leaving the petitioner with no alternative but to approach the authority after the cut off date for admission. In such a situation, learned counsel submits, the cut offdate fixed by the Medical Council of India ought not to operate as bar for the admission of the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fresh PRC submitted by the petitioner on 1.10.03, he would be entitled to admission and therefore, this court should issue appropriate directions to that effect.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Mushahary, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, while controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the documents on record particularly the averments made in para 10 of the writ petition, would clearly go to show that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Assam, neither is his father a permanent resident of the State. Except for the uncle of the petitioner who has been residing in Chandrapur since the year 1967, the entire family of the petitioner, on the admitted facts of the case, reside in the State of Bihar and the petitioner having received his education in Bihar would not be entitled to be recognized as a permanent resident of the State of Assam. Learned Sr. Government Advocate, Assam has further contended that the PRC issued in the present case in favour of the petitioner would not stop the authorities of the Directorate of Medical Education, to be independently satisfied as regards the residential status of the writ petitioner and the totality of the facts of the case having indicated that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Assam, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 30.9.03. That apart, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that Medical Council of India having fixed 30.9.03 as the ultimate date for all the admissions to the First year MBBS course for the session 2003-2004, no admission beyond that date would be permissible.