SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. LOVEDHI AGGARWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar is an institute functioning under the auspices of Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital Trust. It is under the aegis of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. The objective is to promote the medical education and patient care. For the academic year 1997-98 the institute started the course of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS). It was to admit 50 students per year. The duration of the academic course is 41/2 years besides the time for internship. The Institute had brought out the Prospectus and Admission form for the academic year 1997-98. With respect to distribution of seats, it was mentioned:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_152_LAWS(P&H)8_1998(1).html</FRM> The fee structure had also been mentioned which reads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_152_LAWS(P&H)8_1998(2).html</FRM> The interview was provided but it carried no marks.

(2.) Applications were invited and the said advertisement appeared in different newspapers which reads:-

(3.) Lovedhi Aggarwal respondent was one of the applicants. He filed a writ petition for a direction to quash the admissions of Sukhjinder Singh and another and that he may be admitted in MBBS Course being run by the Institute. His grievance was that the appellant and another have wrongfully been admitted in the Institute. In accordance with the Prospectus and the corrigendum that had been issued, respondent had applied and had taken the examination. His name appeared at serial No. 12 in the order of merit for the Payment Seats. Two candidates from the merit list in the Institute though they were higher in merit than him did not appear. In all there were 7 seats in Open Category. In the seven candidates who cleared after interview, one of them did not deposit the fee. The said seat was offered to the next candidate at serial No. 8. There were four seats under the category of Donor Body seats. Two seats were filled up and two remained vacant. As per the admission policy, the unfilled seats had to be converted to General Category candidates from amongst the Payments seats. His complaint was that contrary to the same, the seats were given to the appellant and another. They were Non Resident Indian sponsored candidates. The same being contrary to the prospectus was challenged.