AMANPREET SINGH Vs. GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to admit him to the MD (Medicine) course for the session 2019 being run by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, against a seat vacated by one Dr. Arka Prabha Chattopadhy and all consequential benefits.

(2.) As per the pleadings, the petitioner completed his MBBS course from Government Medical College, Patiala, in the year 2017. Being desirous of admission to MD/MS course, he took the All India Test known as NEET (PG), 2019 and qualified the same. He secured All India Merit No.14297. He submitted his application for admission to the MD/MS course in Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and his order of merit for State quota seats was 41. Certain candidates filed CWP-8234-2019 titled as 'Shrey Goel and others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another', challenging the preference given to candidates who have studied in U.T Chandigarh, for a period of five years or whose parents have resided in U.T Chandigarh for a period of five years prior to the last date of submission of application and also those who held immovable property for a period of five years in Chandigarh. The challenge succeeded and Clauses 2(i) (ii) (iii) of the prospectus were struck down vide judgment dated 23.4.2019. This judgment was challenged by filing SLP (Civil)-15961-2019 titled as 'Tanvi Behl Vs. Shrey Goel and others' and vide order dated 9.5.2019, the Division Bench judgment of this Court was stayed till the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the first counseling took place on 5.4.2019, but the petitioner did not get his preferred choice of MD (Medicine). He was offered the discipline of Anesthesia, Radiotherapy etc., but he refused the same. On account of pendency of the litigation, the second counseling was delayed and was held on 17.5.2019, but again he could not get his choice i.e. MD (Medicine). On the very next day i.e. 18.5.2019, mop up round was held, but here again, the petitioner was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the result of admissions to post-graduate courses in PGIMER, Chandigarh was declared on 28.5.2019 and a selected candidate namely Dr. Parminder succeeded in getting a seat in the said institution. He vacated the seat of MD (Medicine) granted to him resulting in fresh online applications being invited vide notices dated 29.5.2019 and 30.5.2019. Counseling was held on 31.5.2019. Petitioner applied for the seat and was shown at merit No.4. The seat however, went to Dr. Anish Garg, who was at merit No.2, even though, he was not an applicant for MD/MS courses in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. He was given admission on the basis of All India Merit, even though, as per the prospectus, for filling up left over seats, preference was to be give to candidates belonging to the Chandigarh pool. However, the petitioner did not challenge the selection of said Dr. Anish Garg. Thereafter, Dr. Arka Prabha Chattopadhy admitted in the course of MD (Medicine), vacated his seat and shifted to West Bengal. The two other persons higher in order of merit than the petitioner, as per merit list prepared for the counseling held on 31.5.2019, were not interested in the seat vacated by Dr. Arka Prabha Chattopadhy, as they had already secured their preferred disciplines of Gynae and Orthopaedics in other institutions and thus, the petitioner was the only candidate left, who was eligible and qualified to be admitted against the vacant seats.

(3.) It is, further stated that the process of counseling was delayed on account of the litigation initiated in this Court and then carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Had the counseling been conducted as per schedule, the seat vacated by Dr. Arka Prabha Chattopadhy would have been available before 31.5.2019 and the petitioner would have got admission against the same. After the vacancy arose, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, but no decision has been taken thereupon. The seat is going waste and thus, a direction be given to admit the petitioner against the said seat.