ANIMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 719 of 1997 presented before this Court who had challenged the correctness and the legality of the allotment of a seat to 5th respondent in the BDS Course in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, for the reasons set out in the writ petition. The petition was opposed by the 5th respondent by filing a counter. The learned Single Judge, by an order made on 19th February, 1997, after hearing the learned counsel of both sides, dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no case made out for the petitioner to consider his case, nor was he able to convince the Court that the selection of 5th respondent to the course in question was illegal. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

(2.) In the writ appeal presented by her, two specific questions have been raised. Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who having taken us through the grounds of appeal, the averments of the writ petition and also the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, under appeal, urged the following two points : (1) Regard being had to the intendment of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the "Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under-graduate Students) Rules, 1996 and the choice given by the writ petitioner, her offer should have been accepted to provide a seat in the BDS course and not the 5th respondent. (2) Since the Government failed to comply with the requirement of Clause (a) of Rule 4(3) of the Rules referred to above, in not preparing two separate lists - one for the MBBS course and the other for the BDS course in the order of merits, it affected the right of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen this important legal aspect, which he failed to consider. Therefore, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge be modified.

(3.) Contrary to this argument of Shri Mahanta, Shri M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the 5th respondent however, maintains that in the facts, circumstances and regard being had to the questions of law raised in the writ petition, the conclusion reached by the writ Court is perfectly justified and this Court need not interfere with the said order.