MANISHA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case applied for M.B B.S. and B.D S. courses and took part in the common entrance examination held by the Government for free seats in the professional colleges. She was not selected there as she had secured 166 marks out of 300 marks whereas the last candidate who got admitted had obtained 183 marks.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondents 4 and 5 are bound to follow the provisions of the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court of India in Unni Krishnan, J. P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 645. The relevant part of the Scheme provided that no professional college shall call for applications for admission separately or individually and all the applications for admission to all the seats available in such colleges shall be called for by the competent authority alone, alongwith applications for admission to Government/ University colleges of similar nature. In the scheme it is also provided that allotment of students against payment seats shall also be done on the basis of inter se merit determined on the same basis as in the case of free seats. The expression competent authority" has been defined in the Scheme as the Government, University or other authority as is competent to grant permission to establish or to grant recognition to a professional college.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that respondents No 4 and 5 did not follow the procedure prescribed in the said Scheme but they seem to have gone ahead with the process of admitting the students. As the petitioner was not aware on what basis the students were admitted, she has filed the writ petition with a prayer that respondents No. 4 and 5 should be directed to fill in seats, other than free seats, in the fourth respondent -College strictly in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnans case. Even the petitioner has admitted in his petition that the Scheme was subsequently modified from time to time under various judgments of the Supreme Court though, of course, the petitioner does not disclose what exactly is the modification made by the Supreme Court.