DR. ASHA SHARMA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is said to be a qualified Ayurvedic doctor possessing the BAMS degree with seven years of experience in the teaching line, sought admission to Post Graduate classes to be started by respondent No. 2 on the basis of advertisements Annexures P-1 and P-2 and also appeared in the test as also in the interview of the dates fixed for the purpose. Before the selections could be finalised, the petitioner filed the present writ petition urging that respondent No. 2 was not adequately staffed for the course in question, the requisite affiliation had not been granted by the Panjab University and that the method of selection actually adopted by the Selection Committee was in violation of the rules on the subject which had been framed by respondent No. 2 itself. On notice of motion issued to the respondents, a number of replies have been put on record. Respondent No. 2 has pointed out that it had been granted permission to run the course in question by the Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Chandigarh Administration, as evidenced from Annexure R-2/1 and R-2/2, as the Panjab University did not have a faculty for Ayurveda, the Council for Indian Medicines taking cognizance of this fact had granted provisional permission till such time the faculty was developed by the University. The other facts as alleged by the petitioner have also been denied by respondent No. 2. A reply has been put in on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well in which it has been pleaded that the University had not granted any affiliation to respondent No. 2 and as such the admissions made were unauthorised. Replications have been filed by the petitioner reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. D.S. Rajput, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2 was wholly unqualified for the purpose of conducting the course of study and the criteria adopted for the selection process itself was in violation of the rules framed by the institution inasmuch as that 50% marks have been retained for interview rather than 10% fixed in the prospectus.

(3.) Mr. Khehar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has, however, challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition and has also referred to documents Exhibit R-2/1 and R-2/2 and the pleadings in his written statement to contend that the action of respondent No. 2 was fully justified and in accordance with law.