NITASHA PAUL Vs. DIRECTOR, DENTAL COLLEGE, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nitasha Paul through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order migrating respondent Nos. 4 to 11 to the Dental College, Rohtak in preference to her claim for migration being higher in merit. The facts, on which the relief aforesaid rests, need a brief mention.

(2.) Petitioner got admission in K.L.E.S. Dental College and Hospital, Belgaum (Karnataka) and after passing her first professional year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery applied for migration to BDS IInd year at Dental College, Rohtak. Alongwith her application, she attached a certificate dated July 22, 1993 from the Principal Dental College & Hospital, Belgaum certifying that she was bonafide student of the college studying in IInd year BDS course for the year 1993-94. She also stated that the Dental College, Belgaum was recognised by the Dental Council of India and she had been admitted in the first year BDS on the basis of her 10+2 marks. Alongwith the application, she also annexed no objection certificate as also the Marks-sheet from the Karnataka University of the first year BDS examination and domicile certificate of Haryana. Her application was received in the office of Dental College, Rohtak at serial No. 4298 on August 4, 1993. There were in all 49 applicants who had prayed for their migration from different Dental Colleges throughout India to Dental College, Rohtak for the IInd year profession BDS Course. On scrutiny of the said 49 applications, the sub-committee consisting of the Dean of the College Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Chadha, Dr. B.R. Arora and Dr. V.K. Grover, found only 23 candidates to be eligible and obviously the cases of remaining 26 applicants were summarily rejected. In order of merit, the following candidates were recommended for their migration to Dental College, Rohtak by the sub- committee :-

(3.) It is further pleaded that though one Pooja Batra was declared ineligible by the sub-committee yet she was allowed migration. On the facts aforesaid, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by ignoring the rightful claim of petitioner and giving precedence to those who did not deserve migration either on the basis of the rules or recommendations of the sub-committee, the respondents and in particular the Vice Chancellor have proceeded in the matter in a wholly arbitrary manner.