The admission granted to the respondent No. 6 in the DCH course was illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the seat in question should have been advertised before it was filled in.

Headnote:
MEDICAL ADMISSION - POST GRADUATE REGISTRATION - NOMADIC TRIBE CANDIDATE - SEAT VACANCY - ADVERTISEMENT - MERIT LIST - ARTICLE 14 - VIOLATION - ADMISSION GRANTED TO OBC CANDIDATE - CHALLENGE - LEGALITY - COURT'S DIRECTION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Nomadic Tribe (NT) candidate, challenged the registration granted to the respondent No. 6 in the Diploma in Child Health (DCH) course in the seat reserved for NT candidates, which had fallen vacant due to the resignation of Dr. A.H. Jadhao.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the admission granted to the respondent No. 6 was illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the seat in question should have been advertised before it was filled in. The court also held that the practice of operating the merit list of the July term for any seat falling vacant after the seats are filled in the said term was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the admission granted to the respondent No. 6 in the DCH course was legal and valid? 2. Whether the practice of operating the merit list of the July term for any seat falling vacant after the seats are filled in the said term was valid and constitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the admission granted to the respondent No. 6 was illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the seat in question should have been advertised before it was filled in. The court reasoned that the State is bound to comply with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires that all eligible candidates must get an opportunity to compete for the seat sought to be filled in by the Dean. The court also held that the practice of operating the merit list of the July term for any seat falling vacant after the seats are filled in the said term was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the seat which had fallen vacant was not of the July 1992 term but of the January 1992 term, for which there was a separate merit list.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Dean dated 29-3-1993, and directed the Dean to advertise the seat in DCH which had fallen vacant due to the resignation of Dr. A.H. Jadhao. The court also directed the Dean to allot the seat in M.D. (Pathology) to the respondent No. 6 if he communicated his desire to get the said seat within 3 days from the date of the order.

JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the registration granted to the respondent No. 6 in the course in Diploma in Child Health (for short D.C.H.) in the seat reserved for Nomadic Tribe (for short N.T.) candidate which had fallen vacant because one Shri Dr. A.H. Jadhao had vacated the same.

3. The facts are that in January, 1992 when the seats were advertised, for Post Graduate Registration in various subjects, one seat in D.C.H. was reserved for a N.T candidate. The said seat was filled in by allotting it to Dr. A.H. Jadhao who belonged to the N.T Category. As per the usual procedure, in July 1992 term also the seats for Post-Graduate registration were advertised. The respondent No. 6, pursuant to the above advertisement issued in July 1992 term applied for one of the seats for Post Graduate Registration giving his first preference for D.C.H. and the second preference for M.D. in Pathology. The respondent No. 6 was allotted the seat in M.D. (Pathology) which he accepted. Accordingly, he was registered as a student for M. D. (Pathology).

4. In January 1993 Dr. A.H. Jadhao, who was allotted a seat in D.C.H. in January, 1992, gave up the said seat on being allotted a seat in M.D. (Paediatrics) pursuant to the advertisement issued in January, 1993. The above seat in D.C.H. which fell vacant due to resignation of Dr. A.H. Jadhao, was allotted to the respondent No. 6 as an OBC candidate by the order of the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur, dated 29-3-1993 provisionally after it was amongst the reserved category candidates because it appears that according to the respondent-Dean a N.T. candidate was not available. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Dean dated 29-3-1993 by way of this writ petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a candidate belonging to N. T Category. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his name was contained in the merit list of January, 1992 in the subject of D.C.H. and he was at Sr. No. 5 in the said merit list. Further, according to him,' the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the said merit list of January, 1992 were granted registration in other subjects and therefore, he was entitled to get the seat in D.C.H. which was advertised in January 1992 but fell vacant in January, 1993 since the selected candidate in that seat namely Dr. A.H. Jadhao had resigned. It is further his case that the seat could not have been allotted” to the respondent No. 6 because he was already registered in M. D. (Pathology) and unless he gave 3 months notice to give up his registration as required by Rule 6 of the Rules for Post-Graduate admissions, his claim could not have been considered by the Dean.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has urged before us that there is a practice in the Government Medical Colleges at Nagpur that when a seat Which is already allotted becomes vacant alter the second term i.e. July term it is filled in accordance with the merit list of the candidates prepared in the said term. Hence according to him the seat in question, since it fell vacant after July 1992 term, was filled in by a candidate from the merit list in the subject of D.C.H prepared in July 1992 term. Further, since the N.T. candidate was not available in the said merit list, it was rotated amongst the reserved category candidates and was allotted to the petitioner who was an O.B.C. and was the only candidate available in the reserved categories. He has then urged that the respondent No. 6 had already given up the registration in M.D. (Pathology) and therefore, we should not entertain the instant writ petition or at any rate should not disturb the admission given to the respondent No. 6. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court.

(Ashok Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others)1,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis