MISS PARUL LOHRA Vs. THE MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 2134 and 10606 of 1998. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 2134 of 1998.

(2.) The petitioner as also respondent Nos. 6 to 9 appeared in the joint entrance test for admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses in the various institutions mentioned in the prospectus issued, that is, Pandit B.D. Sharma Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak; Dental College, Rohtak; Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha; DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar, and B.R.S. Institute of Medical Sciences, (Dental College and Hospital), Village Kotbilla, Panchkula. On the declaration of her result, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 219 in the merit list whereas respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were shown at Serial Nos. 164, 176, 201 and 214, respectively therein. The first counselling was held on 18th August, 1997 and the candidates up to the merit No. 211, which included respondent Nos. 6 to 8, were admitted against the free as well as the payment seats with these respondents getting admission in the B.D.S. Course at the D.A.V. Centenary College, Yamunanagar, against payment seats and the petitioner and respondent No. 9 along with some others remaining on the waiting list. The second counselling was thereafter conducted on 29th September, 1997 and the petitioner was called for the counselling whereas respondent No. 9 who had not opted against a payment seat was once again ignored. The petitioner and some other candidates were accordingly given admission against payment seats in the D.A.V. Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar, whereas respondent No. 6 was offered a free seat in the B.R.S. Dental College, Kotbilla and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were offered admission to the M.B.B.S. course against a free and payment seat, respectively, in the Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha. Intimation with regard to the offer made to the said respondents was duly conveyed to them by the respondent-University but was not accepted by them and they continued to study in the DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar. The petitioner as also the respondents were invited for the third counselling which took place on 5th December, 1997, and whereas the petitioner was admitted against one of the free seats in the D.A.V. Centenary College Yamuna Nagar, while three other candidates junior to her in ranking were granted admission in the B.R.S. Dental College, Kotbilla, Panchkula also against free seats, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were ignored. It is the petitioner's case that despite the order in her favour granting her admission against a free seat in the D.A.V. Centenary College Yamuna Nagar, the Principal of the said College attempted to fore-stall her admission by instigating respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to file Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19412 of 1997 and 123 and 192 of 1998 praying that as they were higher in merit, they were entitled to a free seat in the D.A.V. Centenary Dental College Yumuna Nagar in her place. These petitions came up for hearing after notice of motion on 9th February, 1998 before a Division Bench and the following order was made :

(3.) On notice of motion in the present case various replies have been put in on behalf of the respondents. A short written statement has been filed by the Registrar of the M.D. University, Rohtak, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which the petitioner's case, as set out, has virtually been admitted. It has been pointed out that the offer made to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on 5th December, 1997 granting them admission to the D.A.V. Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar was not in order as they had refused to accept their admission in the institutions offered to them in the second counselling held on 29th September, 1997. It has also been urged that the Principal of the D.A.V. Centenary Dental College Yamunanagar (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) was not competent to grant admission to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 at Yamunanagar, at his own level, as that was a matter within the exclusive purview of the Admission Committee. The respondent's case has, however, been seriously controverted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and 6 and 8 who have filed three separate written statements. It has been pointed out by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 that they were higher in merit vis-a-vis the petitioner in the entrance test and as the admission was to be granted on the basis of merit as per the admission regulations of the University, the action of the respondents granting admission to them in preference to the petitioner was fully justified. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Principal of the DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamunangar, an attempt has been made to highlight yet further the points made by respondent Nos. 6 and 8 and it has, in addition, been pleaded that despite a number of communications to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the University, with regard to the conflicting claims of the petitioner and the others with regard to admission, no satisfactory reply had been forthcoming and as the time for admission as fixed by the University was running out, he had no option but to grant admission at his own level.