2011 Supreme(Gau) 663
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
U.B.Saha, J.
Monali Debbarma and Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura and Ors. -Resopndent
WP(C) No. 337 of 2011
Decided On : 09-08-2011
Mr. A.K. Bhowmik and Mr. M. Debbarma for the petitioners., Mr. D.P. Kundu, Mr. S. Chakraborty and Ms. R. Guha for the respondents.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - MCI Regulations and State Rules, 2008 - Seats reserved for students - Secure marks in joint entrance examination - At very outset Advocate General of State as well as Assistant would contend that debate in instant writ petition is relating to interpretation of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education which is subsequently amended way of amendment Notification - Therefore neither of respondents will file any counter affidavit and matter can be disposed of at motion stage as petitioners admittedly appeared in joint entrance examination and did not obtain minimum marks in joint entrance examination though they have obtained above marks in qualifying examination – Held, Before concluding judgment this court is of further opinion that even when heart and mind of judge is with the petitioners who belonged to Scheduled Tribe community for interest of whom Central and State are coming with so many legislation that they can come within main stream and get their share but law does not authorize court to take its mind and heart with petitioners – Obviously State being welfare State and being policy making authority may take appropriate steps in this regard not by this court as sympathy cannot substitute place of law - Admittedly in instant case petitioners did not annex any representation made to either of authorities State respondents or respondent - Petition dismissed
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. P. Kundu, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate as well as Ms. R. Guha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1,2,3 and 5. Also heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondent-Medical Council of India ('MCI').
3. At the very outset, the learned Advocate General of the State as well as Mr. Biswas, learned Assistant SG -would contend that the debate in the instant writ petition is relating to interpretation of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 which is subsequently amended on 7.10.2010 by way of amendment Notification. Therefore, neither of the respondents will file any counter-affidavit and the matter can be disposed of at the motion stage as the petitioners admittedly appeared in the joint entrance examination and did not obtain a minimum of 40% marks in the joint entrance examination though they have obtained above 40% marks in the qualifying examination.
4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel also conceded to the prayer for disposal of the writ petition at this motion stage.
5. As agreed to by the learned counsel of all the parties and considering the nature of the prayer, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this motion stage.
6. The facts, required to be narrated for disposal of the instant writ petition, are briefly stated as follows :
Out of 17 petitioners, nine petitioners appeared in the Tripura Board of Secondary Education ('TBSE'), six of them appeared in the Central Board of Secondary Education Examination ('CBSE') and rest two of them appeared in Indian School Certificate Examination CISCE'). All of them secured more than 40% aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, i.e., in the PCB group and also qualified to appear in the joint entrance examination conducted by the Tripura Board of Joint Entrance Examination for allotment of seat in the MBBS Course for admission in 2011 against 25 seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates belonged to Tripura. But the respondent- Tripura Board of Joint Entrance Examination, while invited the application for appearing at the joint entrance examination vide Notification dated 28.12.2010, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, nowhere mentioned that in the joint entrance examination, a student appeared as a Scheduled Tribe candidate has to secure 40% marks in the joint entrance examination which the petitioners were not aware and, as such, they also could not prepare themselves for getting 40% marks or above as required for allotment of seats in the MBBS course from the State quota.
7. It is stated that though the MCI prescribed for certain coaching for upgrading the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates for enabling them to qualify in the joint entrance examination, but the said prescription was not followed and counselling was not provided to the present petitioners and other similarly situated persons.
8. It is further contended that on earlier years though there was prescription for cut off marks for allotment of seats to the intending candidates for admission in the MBBS Course as prescr