RAVINDER SINGH Vs. DAYANAND MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after having secured a M. B. B. S. Degree was selected in the P. C. M. S. on 15th November, 1995 and was posted at Amritsar. The respondent-Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, issued an advertisement for filling in seats for various Post Graduate Courses that were to be run by it. The entrance test was held by the P. G. I. , Chandigarh on 14th December, 1996. The petitioner appeared in test on that date and was declared pass and, thereafter called for interview on 21. 12. 1996, on the declaration of the result, the petitioner was found to be placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list in the speciality of Surgery, on 13. 5. 1997 the petitioner received information that he should report to the respondent-college the next day as a seat in the speciality of Surgery had become available and he being at serial No. 1 in the waiting list had been selected to fill the same. The petitioner, however, reached the office on 15th May, 1997 and was given a letter of even date Annexure P-1 to the petition which postulated certain formalities before his selection could be finalised. These formalities were admittedly complied with by the petitioner by the evening of 17th May, 1997. The petitioner, however, went to the respondent college on 21st May 1997 after having resigned from his government job a day earlier, but was informed that all the vacant seats were to be re-advertised and a notice to that effect would be displayed on the Board the next day. The petitioner, immediately submitted a representation under registered cover seeking admission and also met the concerned authorities but having failed in getting redress, has filed the present petition on 4th June, 1997. Notice of motion was issued for the next date to be served by dasti process. The respondents appeared through their counsel on 6th June, 1997 and sought time to file a reply. The petition was, thereafter, adjourned time and again and was finally admitted on 12th January, 1998 and is now before me in this situation.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that as per the prospectus Annexure R-1 for the session January, 1997 in which the petitioner claims admission, the last date for filling up the seats from the waiting list was 31st January, 1997 and as this date had admittedly expired the vacant seat that had come into existence sometime in May, 1997 could not have been offered to a candidate on the waiting list and in that eventuality, the Admission Committee of the respondent - College decided that the eight vacancies in various disciplines should be circulated amongst the candidates who had appeared in the entrance examination in order of merit and as Dr. Kuldeepak Singh-respondent No. 2 had been higher in merit and had got admission in the subject of Opthalmology in the entrance test but had also opted for the discipline of Surgery, was entitled to admission over the petitioner. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner who had appeared for interview on 4th June, 1997 in response to the fresh invitation and had accepted his selection in the department of opthalmology, the present writ petition was now misconceived.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Patwalia, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Clause (iii) on page 8 of the Prospectus and on Clause 12 on page 12 of the Prospectus to contend that in case any matter on which there was no provision in the Prospectus or in a case, an interpretation was required with regard to the contents of the Prospectus, the decision of the Admission Committee was to be treated as final. He has also argued (as was placed in the written statement) that the petitioner had accepted his admission in the speciality of Opthalmology and as such, could not claim a seat in Surgery.