SANJAY Vs. MAHARASHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2, the Pt. B.D. Sharma, Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter called 'the PGI') conducted a common entrance test for admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course for five medical institutions in the State of Haryana for the year 1997. The petitioner being eligible applied for taking the test in both the courses and after the declaration of the result was placed at merit No. 307 as a general category candidate. As per Chapter-V of the Information Brochure issued by the University, respondent No. 1, the admission was to be made on the basis of merit in the entrance test by an Admission Committee consisting of the Director of the PGI as Chairman, and Principals of the five medical colleges covered by the test as members. The Brochure further provided that candidates higher in merit would be offered a seat for the MBBS course and those lower in merit in the B.D.S. Course. The allotment of the institution was also left to the Admission Committee; the decision to be based on the merit and the preference exercised by the candidate at the time of interview. It was also stipulated that candidates higher in merit would be adjusted/ offered admission against the 50% free seals having a much lower rate of fee whereas those lower in merit would be considered against the more expensive payment seats. The first counselling for the admission was held on 18-8-1997 and as the petitioner did not fall within the merit he was not called to attend it. He was however, called for the second counselling on 29-9-1997 and though he attended the same yet he still did not get admission as being low in merit. On 9-10-1997, the B.R.S. Institute of Medical Sciences (Dental College and Hospital), Village Kot Billa, Panchkula respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement at its own level calling candidates for interview on 20-10-1997 for the vacancies in the B.D.S. Course still available. The petitioner attended the interview on that day and got admission therein against a payment seat. On 3-11-1997 respondent No. 3 the Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education. Agroha, District Hisar also issued an advertisement at its own level for filling in some vacant seats in the M.B.B.S. Course. The petitioner, however, could not attend this interview for various reasons. In the meanwhile the PGI issued another notice for the counselling scheduled for 5-12-1997 to fill the vacant scats in the various Medical Colleges covered by the Brochure and though the petitioner appeared at the time of counselling he was denied admission on the ground that he had failed to attend the counselling in the Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education on 3 11-1997. It is the petitioner's case that despite the third counselling held on 5-12-1997 two more payment seats in the M.B.B.S. Course in the Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha had been filled up on 29-1-1998 and one scat had been granted to respondent No. 5 who stood at serial No. 615 in the merit list. The petitioner has accordingly come to this Court seeking to challenge the award of a scat to respondent No. 5.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two basic arguments before me. He has first urged that there was an obvious distinction between the import of sub-paras (3) and (4) of the Instructions given at page 17 of the Brochure and while the former envisaged that a candidate who failed to attend the Medical Examination on the notified date was liable to forfeit his claim for admission and placement in the waiting list whereas in the latter there was no forfeiture clause and it was provided that on the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission, the vacancies caused would be filled by candidates from the wailing list in order of merit and in that eventuality the petitioner could not be penalised, even if he had not attended the counselling. He has then urged that as per the Information Brochure the admission was to be made by an Admission Committee to be headed by the Director of the PGI and as the offer to the petitioner made on 3-11-1997 by the Medical College, Agroha had been at its own level, he was fully justified in ignoring it and viewed in this light the respondent's stand that the petitioner had forfeited his claim to seek admission in any counselling subsequent to 3-11-1997 was not justified. The arguments raised by Mr. Gupta have been dealt with in Civil Writ Petition No. 2134 of 1998 (Parul Lohra v. M.D. University, Rohtak), decided on 21-8-1998, wherein it has been held as under :---

(3.) The second argument urged by Mr. Gupta-has equal merit. It has also been held in Parul Lohra's case (supra) that the admissions to the medical colleges have to be made by an Admission Committee consisting of the Director of the P.G.I. and some other members. The admission made by any other authority would, therefore, have no legal sanctity and an intimation to attend a counselling by such authority could be ignored without peril.