PRAGYA MANINI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially sought interpretation in the writ petition by which he could have got the benefit in the Clause-5.5(ll) of Medical Council of India Regulations, 1997. The learned Single Judge hits relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Chaudhury Navin Hemabhai and others Vrs. State of Gujarat and others, 2011 3 SCC 617 and a portion of which has been quoted by the teamed Single Judge, which is reproduced here again:

(2.) It is not in dispute that it was the case of admission in the Medical Colleges and the admission was related to the year 2011 -2012. The last date of admission was 30.09.2011 which is already over six months ago. Not only this, the petitioner initially wanted to take benefit of Regulation 5.5.(ll) of the said Regulation and when judgment went against him, petitioner prefers this L.P.A. and now seeking amendment in the writ petitioner to challenge the validity of Clause 5.5.(ll) of the said Regulation. The parties can take alternate plea. However, it depends upon the facts of each case. The petitioner in writ petition could have taken the plea but he did not choose to do so. Here, in this case, it was an issue of admission to the Medical Colleges wherein time schedule is important Therefore, at this belated stage, after ending the battle of first round, we do not find any just reason to permit the petitioner to challenge the validity of said Regulation in this L.P.A. Therefore, the amendment application is dismissed.

(3.) So far as the issue which was under consideration before the learned Single Judge is concerned, that has already been answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Choudhury Navin Hemabhai and others and therefore, we do riot find any illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.