VINITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the Respondents (1) to issue call letter to the Petitioner for counselling to be held on March 26, 1999 for three seats in M.D. Course and three seats in Diploma Course, and (2) not to readvertise one seat in MD (Medicine) and to hold counselling for the same on March 26, 1999 alongwith other seats and consider the case of the Petitioner by way of counselling for one seat of MD (Medicine). The first Respondent-Government issued the Prospectus for Postgraduate Degree and Diploma Courses for the Sessions 1998-2000/2001 fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 21.12.1998 and other schedule to select candidates for admission. The date for holding the competitive examination by the University was fixed as 1.11.1998 and the declaration of result was to be on 13.11.1998. 23.11.1998 has been fixed as a date for counselling. The Petitioner claims that in the competitive examination she secured 140 out of 200 marks and was said to have been placed eighth in the merit list. On 18.12.1998 the first counselling was said to have been held and the Petitioner was said to have been offered Clinical Pathology for Postgraduate Diploma Course and she joined the same on 30.12.1998, which was said to be the last date for joining. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the subsequent counselling held on 18.1.1999, 28.1.1999 and one proposed to be held on 26.3.1999, she has not been called for the purpose of counselling despite her representation made on 9.2.1999.

(2.) The reply filed by the Respondents brings out the relevant factual details and it is worth noticing the facts from the same as also to refer to the stand of the Respondents before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. For the Session in question, it is claimed that there were 35 seats in Degree Courses and 18 seats in Diploma Courses, of which 9 seats in Degree Courses and 4 seats in Diploma Courses were said to have been allotted to All India Quota and the remaining 26 seats in Degree Courses and 14 seats in the Diploma Courses were made available for distribution amongst the service candidates as also the direct candidates. The internal distribution has also been notified. In the reply, the Respondents have stated as to the vacant seats available remaining unfilled as on 1.1.1999, in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_38_TLHPH0_1999_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while placing reliance upon the decisions reported in , (1993) 3 SCC 332 Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services and Anr, 1996 AIR(AP) 389 Srinivasa Rao v. Convener, 1998 2 SCC 402 Rajiv Mittal v. Maharshi Dayanand University and Ors. and, 1998 5 SCC 534 Medical Entrance Problems Redressal Forum (Regd.) v. Director General Health Services and Anr. contended that the fact that the Petitioner had appeared in the first counselling and got a course assigned or could not get it changed in the subsequent consideration, shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner getting a change of the course as against the seats available, commensurate with the merit ranking of the Petitioner and that, therefore, the action of the Respondents in not calling the Petitioner for subsequent counselling is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that some of the covetous and important courses which are now available for being filled up were not available for the Petitioner so as to have exercised her choice in respect of the same either at the time of the first counselling held on 16.12.1998 or in the change over counselling held on 6.1.1999 and, therefore, the Petitioner could neither be denied of the opportunity to exercise her option against the important courses available now for being filled up nor could the claim of the Petitioner, vis-a-vis, her permit ranking be denied to her. Relying upon a catena of cases starting from the decision of the Apex Court reported in , AIR 1968 SC 1012 Minor P. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors, 1984 3 SCC 654 Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and, 1997 3 SCC 90 Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. etc., learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in respect of Postgraduate Degree/Diploma Courses admission by merit must be given prominent role and inasmuch as even the Respondents have committed themselves to such a position, the fact that the Petitioner had got a course assigned to her in the first counselling or could not make up for a change in the counselling held on 6.1.1999, the merit criteria could not be sacrificed, particularly when persons who are admitted to the courses have atleast already commenced their course unlike those to be admitted afresh and there is no justification therefore to deny the meritorious candidate, who has already got her admission in an insignificant course, being allowed to stake his claim and to be considered as against other important courses in the various disciplines which fell vacant and became available to direct candidates later, for the first time.