RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions since common questions of law and facts are involved, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts as disclosed in C.W.P. 182 of 1980, may be stated. The petitioner after having successfully passed the B, Sc. part I examination with medical subject, from the Himachal Pra-desh University, applied for admission to the competitive examination of M.B.B.S. course 1980-81 session, to the Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Simla. It is stated that the admission to the M.B.B.S. Course of Himachal Pradesh Medical College is made in accordance with the conditions contained in the prospectus issued by respondents 1 and 2. It is further disclosed that there are 65 seats in all for the M.B.B.S. Course for 1980-81 session, out of which 41 were unreserved whereas 24 were reserved. It is averred that the number of reserved and unreserved seats contained in the prospectus was later on modified by making provision for reservation of seats for candidates from rural areas. After such modification, the number of unreserved seats was reduced to 33 and of reserved seats, increased to 32. The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination against unreserved seats and after the compilation of result the petitioner in the select list was placed at serial No. 37, whereas Shri Narain Kumar, the other petitioner in C.W.P. 185 of 1980, was placed at serial No. 36. It is pointed out that since out of three seats reserved for the political sufferers, only one was filled and, out of two seats reserved for backward classes none could be filled; as such in accordance with the note contained in the prospectus, these four seats were also treated as unreserved, thereby raising the total number of unreserved seats to 37. It is contended that the respondent No. 3 later on changed the aforesaid list and prepared another list, termed as revised merit list, on 21-10-1980. A copy of the revised list has been annexed and marked as An-nexure PD. In this list the names of the petitioners, in both these writ petitions, were deleted whereas the names of respondents 4 and 5 were added at serial Nos. 30 and 36 respectively. It is contended by the petitioner that he represented the matter to respondent No. 3 and a copy of the same is attached as Annex-ure PE.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the action of the respondent No. 3 in revising the list and deleting their names is wrong and illegal. Inter alia, it is contended that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause before his name was deleted. The petitioner has also alleged legal mala fides against the respondents.