ANIT RANI Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were in all thirty three seats reserved for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses conducted by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak ( for short the 'University") for the session which commenced in September/October, 1991. The petitioner appeared in the entrance test and was placed at serial number 32 in the merit list of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates. Three candidates out of this list who were higher in merit than the petitioner did not appear for the interview after the entrance test and consequently the petitioner was pushed up at serial Number 29 in the list. The firs 25 candidates opted for the M.B.B.S. course at Medical College, Rohtak and Agroha Medical Institute, Rohtak. The next 3 candidates, that is at serial numbers 26,27 and 28 in the merit list got admission for the B/D.S. course at Rohtak. The remaining 5 candidates including the petitioner were given admission in the B.D.S. course at D.A.V. Centenary College, Yamunanagar which is affiliated to the University. The candidate at serial number 1 of the merit list who had opted for the M.B.B.S. Course at Rohtak was not allowed admission on the ground that he was not a scheduled caste by birth and had claimed this status by adoption. He filed Civil Writ Petition No.16037 of 1991 in this Court which was admitted but the petitioner therein was not allowed any provisions admission. The petitioner, herein, then filed the present petition challenging the admission granted to one Ms Anit Rani and Shri Krishan Kumar on the ground that they were not scheduled castes and claimed admission to the M.B.B.S. course at Rohtak. This petition was admitted on May 7, 1992 and was ordered to be heard with Civil Writ Petition No. 16037 of 1991.

(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner is continuing with her B.D.S. Course at D.A.V. Centenary College, Yamunanagar and has by now completed two years of the course and therefore her counsel did not press her claim for seeking admission to the M.B.B.S. Course at this stage. The only prayer made was that since the candidate at serial number 1 who was the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 16037 of 1991 had not been given admission at Rohtak all the candidates in the merit list must have been pushed up leaving one seat for the B.D.S. Course vacant at Rohtak against which the petitioner be allowed to join the course there. It was also contended that Miss Anju Rani, respondent No. 4, did not join the course ad her seat too must be vacant at Rohtak and the petitioner be considered against either of the two seats. On enquiry from the University it transpired that these seats have since been filed up either under Court orders or by way of migration etc. and the counsel for the University after obtaining instructions from the Registrar of the University categorically stated that there was no seat vacant in the B.D.S. Course in either of the two colleges at Rohtak. Since there is ho seat vacant at Rohtak, I am afraid I cannot direct the University to create an additional seat forth petitioner in the 3rd year of the B.D.S. Course. However, if the petitioner approaches the University with a request of creation of an extra seat, the University shall proceed to seek approval from the Dental Council of India for the creation of an extra seat and if such approval is granted the University shall allow the petitioner to join the B.D.S. Course at Rohtak. This request of the petitioner is being allowed primarily for the reason that she belongs to a poor family and her father who is a class II employee posted at Rohtak cannot afford to spend a sum of Rs. 900/- every month for the education of his daughter at Yamuna Nagar.

(3.) With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Order accordingly