ISHITA SINGHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ishita Singhal has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her candidature for admission in MBBS course 2019 on passing 10+2 examination from the School recognized by the Chandigarh Administration being eligible for applying against UT Pool seats. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of public notice dated 27.06.2019 qua the petitioner whereby her candidature has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of Appendix B1 and B4.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present writ petition are that the petitioner has passed 10+1 and 10+2 examination from DAV Senior Secondary School, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. She sought admission in MBBS course for the session 2019-20. The petitioner was required to submit an affidavit in the form as specified in Appendix B4 appended with the prospectus. Before submission of such affidavit, CWP No.30432 of 2018 titled as Bodhdeep Pal and others vs. U.T. Chandigarh and others was filed before this Court wherein criteria was challenged. As per criteria, the students who have done their 10+2 examination from the Schools recognized by the Chandigarh Administration were eligible for applying against UT Pool Seats. By virtue of the said condition/criteria, the students who are residents of other state/states were also eligible for UT Pool seats by doing their 10+2 examination from Chandigarh Administration Schools. The petitioner and other students, who are residents of UT and have completed their entire study from Chandigarh, have lost their chance of admission. Vide public notice dated 18.06.2019, reference of said writ petition was made and next date of hearing in the above said petition was also fixed as 02.07.2019. The last date of submission of application was 29.06.2019. Because of dispute of the eligibility criteria as challenged in the above said petition, the petitioner was required to give an undertaking by way of affidavit stating that she had not claimed benefit of residence in MBBS in any State/UT other than UT Chandigarh for State Quota Seats. The petitioner did not furnish such affidavit. During pendency of said writ petition, a list of rejected/disqualified candidates was displayed and her name was mentioned at Sr. No.85 in the list. Said writ petition was allowed by this Court but thereafter it was challenged by way of filing SLP (Civil) No.16604 of 2019 titled as Aditya Jain vs. Bodh deep before Hon'ble the Apex Court, which was allowed and judgment passed by this Court was set- aside. The petitioner did not submit the documents as per objection raised in the list about the eligibility criteria as it was pending before the Court.

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court after decision of SLP on the ground that a right has accrued to her to allow her to participate in the counselling and also for consideration of her candidature under the changed circumstances.