MAMTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present amended writ petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in the General Category in M.Sc. Nursing course in the speciality of Obstetric and Gynecological Nursing in respondent No. 3 -State Institute of Nursing and Para Medical Sciences situated at Shri Muktsar Sahib (for short, the SINPMS) against the 25 seats sanctioned and allotted to the said college by the Indian Nursing Council (for short, the 'IRC'). A further direction is also prayed that respondent No. 5 -Mohan Dai Oswal College of Nursing at Ludhiana be asked to give no objection certificate for transfer of admission of the petitioner to respondent No. 3 -College and further the fees deposited with the said college be refunded and adjusted against the funds payable to respondent No. 3 -SINPMS, wherein the petitioner is seeking admission.

(2.) AS per the pleaded case of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 -University issued prospectus for conducting the Punjab Master of Sciences (Nursing) Entrance Test (for short, the 'PMNET -2013'). As per the result declared, the petitioner secured 404 marks and was placed at rank No. 86. As per the schedule of counselling for admission in the M.Sc. Degree Course, no seat had been sanctioned to the respondent No. 3 -SINPMS. Since the last admission in the General Category closed with 476 marks, the petitioner took admission in the respondent No. 5 -College on payment of Rs. 1,75,000/ - as fees on 10.10.2013. Thereafter, 25 seats of various discipline were allotted to respondent No. 3 -SINPMS by the NRC and a public advertisement was issued on 30.10.2013 and candidates who had qualified in the PMNET -2013 were called for walk -in counselling by the respondent No. 3 at 3 p.m. on the same day. The petitioner attended the counselling but her case was not considered on the ground that she could not obtain NOC from respondent No. 5 -College. It was submitted that persons lower in merit had been granted admission and respondent No. 4 who had secured 404 marks had also been granted admission and the petitioner being elder in age, had a preferential right over and above her, in terms of Clause 9(ii) of Part -II of the Prospectus. Another counselling was held on 08.11.2013 for filling up the remaining seats and admission was given to candidates having lower merit and having only 200 marks. It was further pleaded that NOC was to be granted in the event of granting admission in the new college in the subsequent process of counselling. The main grouse of the petitioner is that the fees in the respondent No. 3 -SINPMS was much less as compared to that of respondent No. 5 -College, in which she was studying.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner was entitled for admission on 30.10.2013 and admission was wrongly given to respondent No. 4 and even respondent No. 4 did not have the NOC, at that point of time.