IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
Marlapalle B.H. Dabholkar N.V., JJ.
Sameer Anant Deshpande .... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
L.P.A. No. 60 of 2001, decided on 14-9-2001.
Advocates appeared :
S.R. Barlinge, for petitioner.
V.D. Sapkal, A.G.P., for respondents Nos. 1 2.
S.A. Kulkarni, for respondent No. 3.
A.B. Kale, for respondent No. 4.
Transfer of registration- Where the admission rules did not provide for transfer of registration from one institute to other, such right cannot be sought to be exercised by resorting to legal remedies.
Rules for Post Graduate Courses as amended by Government Resolution by government dated 24.10.1991, Rules 2 and 6-Change in registration- Change in registration from diploma to a degree course in the same specialty amount to change in registration from one subject to another. According to Rule 6 ordinarily candidate selected for registration will not be allowed to change from one subject to another, which would mean that in exceptional circumstances such change can be allowed. Rule 2 bars simultaneous registration in diploma and degree course will be same specialty unless registration in existence course is discontinued, however Rule 6 can allows change of registration in exceptional circumstances.
Medical College-Admissions in return seats from All India quota
All India Quota- While feeling up seats from All India Quota the policy of reservation is not applicable and seats are filled strictly on merit basis.
Precedent - Exceptions to Law of Precedent - If a decision is rendered without considering a statutory provision or a rule on the basis of which a decision is sought or a judicial pronouncement made earlier by a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench of the High Court or the decision rendered is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the doctrine of per incuriam would operate.
MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---The issue involved in this appeal is regarding admission to the M.S. (Opth.), M.S. (Paed.) and M.D. (Radiology) courses for January, 2001 batch against the seats returned from the All India Entrance Examinations 2001 quota of 25% for such admissions.
2. The appellant had passed his M.B.B.S. examination in May, 1988 and scored 73 out of 100 marks in the subject of Opthalmology in the third year of the said examinations. He completed his internship training on 13th July, 1999 and was granted registration by the Maharashtra Medical Council. The Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad issued an advertisement on 19th August, 1999 inviting applications for admissions to the post-graduate degree/diploma courses in different faculties of medicine for July, 2000 batch and he had applied in response to the said advertisement with first preference for M.S. (Opth.) second preference for Diploma in Ophthalmology and third preference for M.D. (Microbiology). Though he had scored highest marks in the subject of Opthalmology he had no chance of getting admission either in post-graduate degree or diploma in the said discipline as the lone seat for M.S. (Opth.) was reserved for candidates belonging to Nomadic Tribes 1, and that of Diploma in Opthalmology was reserved for the O.B.C. candidates and the petitioner belonged to the open category. He, therefore, filed an Appeal bearing No. 70 of 1999 challenging 100 per cent reservation and during the pendency of the said appeal he had restricted his claim for admission to Diploma in opthalmology only. The appeal was allowed by the University and College Tribunal vide its order dated 4th November, 1999 by directing the authorities to advertise the seat for Diploma in Opthalmology, providing one seat for candidates belonging to the open category. Accordingly, advertisement was issued on 8th December, 1999, interviews were conducted on 22nd December, 1999 and the appellant came to be selected for admission to Diploma in Opthalomogloy. His name was recommended to the Deputy Director of Health Services on 23rd December, 1999 for being appointed to the post of Medical Officer which is a condition for being admitted to the post-graduate courses. The Deputy Director issued an order on 13th December, 1999 appointing the appellant to the post of Medical Officer on account of his selection for admission to the Diploma in Opthalmology and he joined the said post on 13th December, 1999 itself. Prior to this appointment, he was also appointed as Medical Officer vide order dated 30th August, 1999 and he had completed about four months service as Medical Officer, Class-II. Thus, he put in about nine and half months service as Medical Officer and claimed that he was eligible for condonation of the shortfall. He approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3616 of 2000 and by order dated 12th October, 2000 the Director of Medical Education and Research was directed to dispose of the petitioners application within a period of one week. The said application was finally decided by the Director vide his order dated 9th November, 2000 and the Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad was pleased to select the appellant for admission to the D.O.M.S. course of July, 2000 batch and he was admitted at the Government Medical College, Aurangabad against a vacant seat.
3. The appellant joined the Diploma course and he had undergone training for the said course for about 7-8 months. The respondent No. 1 published an advertisement on 22nd June, 2001 inviting applications to fill in the returned seats from All India Entrance Examination quota (All India quota) as well as the vacant seats from the institutional quota of January, 2001 batch. In the said advertisement there was one seat for M.S. (Opth.) from the A.I. E.E. quota. The appellant, therefore, applied against the said seat for admission to M.S. (Opth.) while he was studying for the Diploma in Opthalmology course. On 10th July, 2001 the res
Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar v. State of Maharashtra
Dr. Ganpat Mashnajirao Wadekar v. State of Maharashtra
Shilpa Suresh Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Sanjeev Dinkarrao Rokde v. State of Maharashtra
Mittal Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
Dr. Anil Kesharao More v. State of Maharashtra
Dr. Sheela Laxmikant Kulwal v. State of Maharashtra
Komal Kamlakar Chitnis etc. v. Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.