ANJAN DEEP CHADHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had approached this court in the year 1992 with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit her to the three years course leading to the decree of Master of Dental Surgery on the basis of her marks in the B.D.S. examination. She had also prayed for the quashing of the notification dated September 9, 1991 by which the State Government had directed that the selection shall be made on the basis of an entrance test. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner passed her B.D.S. Examination in the year 1990. On June 30, 1991, she completed the house job. While she was still doing the house job, the State Government issued a notice on March 8, 1991 inviting applications for admission to the three years course leading to the degree of Master of Dental Surgery. Before the selection could be made, a fresh notice was issued on July 10, 1991. Candidates were given another opportunity to submit their applications. The petitioner applied for admission. She was interviewed on August 8, 1991. She alleges that her name was included in the merit list. However, on September 9, 1991, the State Government issued a fresh notification by which the selection already made for admission to the three years M.D.S. course was scrapped. It was further directed that fresh merit list shall be prepared after conducting an entrance test. Two candidates challenged this notification through Civil Writ Petition No. 12245 of 12757 and 1991. Vide order dated June 3, 1992, these petitions were allowed. As a result, the two candidates were admitted to the course. The petitioner alleges that both these persons had secured easser marks then her in B.D.S. examination. One of them and secured a total of 1808 marks out of 2800. The other candidate had a total score of 1608 out of 2800. As against this, the petitioner had secured 1893 marks. She had in fact stood first in the University examination. In this situation, the petitioner approached the Court with a prayer that the respondents should be directed to admit her as candidates who were below her in order of merit had already been admitted. She also pointed out that certain additional seats had become available and that she could be accommodated against one of those seats.

(3.) It appears that vide order dated July 23, 1992, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner filed a review application No. 229 of 1992. On August 28, 1992, the Division Bench allowed the review application and recalled the order of July 23, 1992. It further directed the issue of notice of motion to the respondents. After the filing of the written statement etc., the matter came up for consideration before the Bench on September 18, 1992. Their Lordships were pleased to direct that the petitioner be admitted to the three years M.D.S. course. Accordingly, the petitioner was admitted.