GEETA GOEL Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 5346 and 9813 of 1991.

(2.) In both these petitions, the petitioners applied for admission in M.D. (Gynaecology) and Diploma Course Group-I. They successfully competed in the entrance examination held in February, 1990. On having passed the entrance examination, the petitioners were called for interview and one interview letter was issued for the reason that interview for degree as well as diploma course was to be held on the same day, place and time. In the interview letter, it had not been mentioned that separate interviews for degree and diploma course would be held. Final result of the entrance examination was declared in January, 1991. Petitioner was not selected for admission to M.D. (Gynaecology) and for four seats available in diploma course, four candidates, namely, Neeraj Kapur, Kavita Bansal, Indu Taneja and Urmila Miglani were selected. Marks obtained by the selected candidates were less than the one obtained by the petitioners. Petitioner Dr. Geeta Goel in Civil Writ Petition No. 5346 of 1991 had obtained 55.135% marks whereas Dr. Nishi Goel, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 9813 of 1991 had secured 50.665% marks. Petitioners made representations to respondent No. 4 praying therein that they be granted admission in diploma in gynaecology because they had secured more marks than the selected candidates. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that despite representations made by them, no positive response has been received from the side of the respondent. When the writ petitions came up for motion hearing, respondents were directed to admit the petitioners in diploma course in gynaecology at their risk and responsibility subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, Later, by an interim order, they were permitted to take examination and vide subsequent order dated May 28,1992, declaration of the result was made subject to the final decision of the writ petitions.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents has conceded at the bar that the matter in issue has come to be covered by decision of this Court in Dr. Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Maharishi Dayanand University,1992 1 SLR 139wherein it was held that marks of interview be considered both for degree and diploma if the candidates had applied for both in the same speciality. If the marks have been awarded twice over, one for degree and one for diploma course, then the higher marks will be taken into consideration for both the courses. If a candidate has not been considered even though applied for degree or diploma course, but has been interviewed either for diploma or for degree, the same marks shall be considered for the other course i.e. for degree or diploma, as the case may be. Since it has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners have obtained more marks, petitioners are certainly entitled to be admitted to diploma course in Gynaecology. This having not been done, a direction in this regard deserves to be given.