Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 442
[Citation : 2009(4) RLW 3527 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Abhishek Sain & Ors. Vs. Raj.University of Health Sc. (Asopa, J.)
HON'BLE PREM SHANKER ASOPA, J.
Abhishek Sain & Ors.
Versus
Raj.University of Health Sc.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2008 & 8 Ors., decided on 18.03.2009
Rajendra Soni, P.C. Sharma, C.P. Sharma, D.S. Poonia, D.P. Sharma, for Petitioners;
R.A. Katta, for University;
S.N. Kumawat, Addl.A.G., for State;
Angad Mirdha, for MCI;
A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Parinitoo Jain and Abhay Jain, for Respondent Institution;
Ashok Gaur, for Respondent-Intervener
Headnote:Academic Matters — Admission in M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of PC-PMT of BDS as well as 10+2 — Not operating the waiting list of RPMT-2008 — Petition for direction to consider the candidature on the basis of merit in RPMT-2008 — Contrary to Regulations of MCI and University Ordinance and violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India — Held — (i) The policy of Government to hold the Common Entrance Examination for Government as well as private un-aided medical institutions as regard 85% seats should be reasonable, fair and transparent are in the interest of students and public — (ii) Admission given to candidates who have either not appeared and even if appeared then failed to secure any merit position are illegal not irregular — State Government directed to hold counseling from merit list of students of RPMT-2008 — Petitioners stand in such merit are entitled for admission.
Writ petition allowed. (Paras 45 to 48 & 51)
kS{kf.kd ekeys & ch-Mh-,l- dh ih-lh--ih,eVh ,oa 10+2 ds vk/kkj ij ,echch,l ikB~;Øe esa izosk & vkjih,eVh 2008 dh izrh{kk lwph dks dk;kZfUor ugha djuk & vkjih,eVh 2008 esa ofj;rk ds vk/kkj ij vH;fFkZrk ij fopkj djus ds funsZk gsrq ;kfpdk & ,elhvkbZ ds izLrkoksa o foofo|ky; v/;knsk ds foijhr vkSj Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 dk mYya?kudkjh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ¼i½ jkT; ljdkj dh 85% lhVksa ds lEcU/k esa ljdkjh ,oa futh xSj-lgk;rk izkIr esfMdy laLFkkvksa gsrq lkekU; izosk ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus dh uhfr rdZ laxr] mfpr ,oa ikjnkhZ gksuh pkfg;s] fo|kfFkZ;ksa ,oa vketu ds fgr esa gS& ¼ii½ ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izosk fn;k x;k tks ;k rks ijh{kk esa ugha cSBs ;k cSBs Hkh rks os ofj;rk dk dksbZ Hkh LFkku gkfly djus esa foQy jgs og voS/k ,oa vfu;fer gS & vkjih,eVh 2008 ds fo|kfFkZ;ksa dh ofj;rk lwph esa ls dkamlfyax vk;ksftr djus gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks funsZk fn;s & izkFkhZx.k tks ,slh ofj;rk lwph esa txg cukrs gS] os izosk gsrq ik= gksaxsA ¼in la[;k 45 ls 48 o 51½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Since common questions of fact and law relating to not operating the waiting list of RPMT-2008 and giving admissions in M.B.B.S. only on the basis of PC-PMT of BDS as well as 10+2 are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, all the aforesaid writ petitions have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided together.
2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider and give admission to the petitioners in MBBS Course in Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital by considering their candidature against the available 85% seats of 150 seats for their admission in MBBS on the basis of their respective merit in RPMT-2008 by holding counselling and further no person be admitted against the aforesaid seats from any other source except the RPMT-2008. In order to better appreciate the aforesaid issue involved in the matter, the leading facts have been taken from SBCWP No.10858/2008 Abhishek and others vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and others.
3. Some of the undisputed details regarding the month/date(s) of RPMT-2008 and counselling for admission in M.B.B.S. which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy are as under:
26.2.2008 - RPMT-2008 was notified. Name of respondent No.5 Institution at Sl.No.10 in anticipation of sanction of seats.
June, 2008 - Result of RPMT-2008 declared.
14th to 16th July, 2008 - Date of first counselling
3.9.2008 - Date of Supreme Court order regarding allotment of seats to Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital within a week as per statement of the Addl. Solicitor General.
16.9.2008 - Sanction of 150 seats by the Medical Council of India.
23/24.9.2008 - Date of last counselling. Respondent No.5 Institution did not participate in counselling.
25-28.9.08 - Date of admissions given by Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital on the basis of PC-PMT BDS as well as 10+2.
29.9.2008 - Date of show cause notice issued by the State for taking students as per Ordinance 272 and against direction of the Supreme Court not to change or tinker with and non compliance with State action against the Institution will be taken.
30.9.2008 - Last date fixed by the Govt. of India for admission in MBBS in consultation with MCI, State and University.
Last week of Sept.08/second week of Oct.2008 - Between last week of September, 2008 and 2nd week of October, 2008 all the aforesaid writ petitions were filed after notice for demand of justice.
Schedule-A. - Date of filing the writ petition, interim order(s) passed in SBCWP No.10858/2008 and other writ petitions.
4. The main grievance raised in these writ petitions by the petitioners is that they all stand in the merit list prepared by the University in the RPMT-2008 but could not be admitted for want of seats but when the seats were made available on 16.9.2008, the list was not operated by the respondents which has resulted in sacrificing the merit or circumventing the same by admitting students from PC-PMT of BDS as well as 10+2 examination in MBBS Course by Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital against all 150 seats contrary to Regulation No.5 of the M.C.I. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (in short the MCI Regulations, 1997'), Ordinance 272 of the University and Supreme Court judgments therefore, the said action of the Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital is not only contrary to Regulation No.5 of the MCI Regulations, 1997 and Ordinance 272 of the University but violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as various judgments of the Supreme Court.
5. The respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (in short `the University'), the State and the Medical Council of India (in short `the Medical Council'), Principal, Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital (in short `the respondent Institution') have filed their respective reply.
6. The University in its reply has stated that in the controversy in question,
