SUMEDHA KALIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11980, 14858, 14904, 15645, 12658, 12627, 12794, 13569, 13448, 13945, 14903, 14252, 15067, 16113, 16640 of 1989 and 48 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions. This Court has been told that in Civil Writ Petition No. 48 of 1990 notice has been issued very recently and the counsel has not been able to obtain the instructions from the University. This must be true, but this Court is not inclined to adjourn any writ petition as whatever relief is going to be granted in these writ petitions, the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition would be entitled to the same, subject to the condition that the petitioner has depicted correct factual position as regards his merit in the open entrance examination. The parties' counsel are agreed that the basic facts of the case for determining the question in controversy can be picked up from Civil Writ Petition No. 11980 of 1989 Miss Sumedha Kalia and others v. The State of Haryana and others.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in C.W.P. No. 11980 of 1989 - Miss Sumedha Kalia and others v. The State of Haryana and others conducted a combined entrance examination for admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses for year 1989-90. The number of seats to be filled up by the University for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses as has been given in the prospectus is as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_239_AIR(P&H)_1990Html1.htm</FRM> From the abovementioned table, it is clear that the total number of seats for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is 165 out of which 115 seats are meant for the Medical College Rohtak and 50 seats are meant for Agroha Medical Institute, Agroha. Out of the 115 seats meant for the Medical College Rohtak, 98 are to be filled up by the University while 17 seats are to be filled up on all India basis by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, CBSE), New Delhi. In turn, out of the said 17 seats, 13 are meant to be filled up from the open category while 4 seats are meant to be filled up from SC/ST candidates. As regards Agroha Medical Institute, Agroha, out of the said 50 seats, 42 are to be filled up by the University and 8 seats are to be filled up by the CBSE, New Delhi, on an all India basis. Out of said eight seats meant to be filled up by the CBSE six seats have been thrown open to the open category while two have been reserved for SC/ST candidates. As regards the BDS course, 20 seats are meant for the Dental College Rohtak whereas 22 seats are to be filled up by the DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar. Agroha Medical Institute Agroha does not have the college and, therefore, the seats meant for it are to be filled up and were filled up in the past by the Medical Institute, Rohtak. There is no doubt as regards this factual position. There is further no dispute that in the list of institutes mentioned in the CBSE, the name of Agroha Medical Institute, Agroha, does not find any mention. Out of the 115 seats in the Medical College. Rohtak, 9 seats from the all India quota are lying vacant and one seat has fallen vacant after the shifting of one student Sanjay Duhan on account of the acceptance of his writ petition. Out of the 50 seats in Agroha Medical Institute, 10 are admittedly lying vacant which have not been filled up till now. According to the learned counsel for both the parties, 5 seats in the BDS course at Rohtak are lying vacant. Out of these five seats, three are to be filled up by the CBSE on an all India basis and one seat is to be filled up through the Government of India nominee whereas the remaining one has to be filled up from the category of SC/ST, as contended before me by learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The abovementioned factual position was by and large conceded before this Court but at the same time it was contended by the counsel for the respondents that the availability of seats is lesser than what was being claimed by the counsel for the petitioners, whereas the counsel for the petitioners were of the view that the availability of seats is much more. However, the controversy on factual position would not detain this Court, as the admission would actually be made against the available seats only. This Court has to determine the rights of the petitioners only and thereafter law would take its own course as regards the admission of the petitioners is concerned.