VISHAL BRAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN there is direct conflict between two prospectuses : One issued by the University for undertaking the Punjab Medical Entrance Test for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S. (Ayurvedacharya) Courses in the Medical/Dental/Ayur -vedic Colleges of Punjab and the one on the basis of which the student was given the admission, which prospectus is to prevail, is the only point for determination in the present petition filed by Shri Visha! Brar who has prayed for the quashment of the action of respondent No. 3 i.e. Shri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar for allotting the paid seat to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this action on the part of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and illegal and directions should be given to respondent No. 3 to treat the petitioner as against a free seat and not against a paid seat and to refund the excess fee charged from the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner was aspirant for the course of M.B.B.S. He applied for Combined Medical Entrance Test 1998 -99 to be conducted by respondent No. 2, Punjabi University on behalf of the respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Punjab, on 6.6.199S. The petitioner obtained 570 marks in the entrance test and his rank in the PMT was 436. According to the petitioner, the number of seats available in MBBS 1st year in the institution of respondent No. 3 as per paragraph 6 of the Prospectus of the University, was 50.50% seats are to be reserved as free seats, 35% seats are to be treated as paid seats and 15% seats are meant for NRI candidates. The distribution of free seats for general category comes to 18 and 7 seats go to SC/Scheduled Tribes. 17 are paid seats and 8 seats go to NRI quota. The sole grouse of the petitioner is that he was entitled to free seat as per the above calculations, whereas, he was given paid seat, the fee of which is much more as against a free seat. He had to accept the paid seat under compulsion. The petitioner further alleges that there were 13 free seats for general category. The petitioner appeared for interview for general merit seat in MBBS 1st Year general category on 23.10.1998 and his name figured at serial No. 19. The petitioner came to know that respondent No. 3 had filled the seats No. 14 to 18 by treating the same meant for rural category which is in violation of PMT prospectus 1998 -99 issued by the University. The petitioner appeared for interview for paid seat on 24.10.1998. He made the payment for paid seat but when he came to know that he was entitled to free seat, he made a representation before respondent No. 3 on 18.12.1998. He also sent the reminder but to no effect. In short, the grouse of the petitioner is that he was entitled to free seat and not against the paid seat and the action of the respondent No. 3 in treating him against a paid seat, is illegal and violative.

(3.) AS I have staled above at the first outset, short point for determination in this writ petition is that when two prospectuses are under conflict which prospectus is to prevail.