SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sabina, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Ashish Kumar, Son Of Shri Jagdish Chand - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (Health) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.1651 of 2022
Decided On : 23-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General

The central legal point established is that the terms of the Prospectus, including the surrender of occupied PG seats for Mop Up round participation, must be honored for State Quota admissions.

Headnote:

Article 226 - Admission to PG Medical Course - 2.2, 2.3 - The court discussed the provisions of Clause 2.2 and 2.3 of the Prospectus, highlighting the requirement for candidates admitted under 50% State Quota to surrender their occupied PG seat within a stipulated period to participate in Mop Up round. The court emphasized that the advisory related to All India Quota and could not be applied to the State Quota, and the respondents were bound to honor the terms of the Prospectus.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought admission to a PG medical course under the State Quota and surrendered the allocated seat to participate in the Mop Up round. The respondents denied the petitioner's participation based on an advisory related to All India Quota.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents' denial of the petitioner's opportunity to participate in the Mop Up round, as per Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus, was illegal and without basis. The impugned notice was set aside.

Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the Mop Up round under the State Quota, despite surrendering the allocated seat as required by the Prospectus.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the advisory related to All India Quota could not be applied to the State Quota, and the respondents were obligated to adhere to the terms of the Prospectus for filling up State Quota seats.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated 19.3.2022 was set aside.

ORDER :

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mainly the following relief:-

    “(i) That the notice dated 19.03.2022 (Annexure P7) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the Mop Up round/Extended Mop Up round (if any) counseling.”

2. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the test for taking admission to Post Graduate (MD/MS) course in September 2021 and had qualified the same. As per the Prospectus for admission in Government Medical Colleges of the State issued in December, 2021, 50% of the seats were to be filled up from State Quota. Petitioner was selected against 50% State Quota for PG (MD/MS) seat. Petitioner could not get any seat in the first counselling. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the second counselling, which was held in February, 2022 and was allocated seat in Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla under State Quota in MD (Anesthesia). A notice was issued by respondent No.3 on 15.3.2022 directing that the candidates who had occupied a seat in the first or second round of counselling and intend to participate in the Mop Up round of counselling against the vacant/unfilled PG seats, to surrender their allocated seat as per Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus. On 16.3.2022, petitioner surrendered his seat in MD (Anesthesia) as he intended to participate in the Mop Up round. However, vide notice dated 19.3.2022, respondents held that the candidates who had been allocated PG seats in previous round of State counselling, were ineligible for participating in further rounds of counselling including Mop Up round in view of the advisory dated 16.3.2022. However, the notice dated 19.3.2022 was in violation of Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus and was liable to be set aside.

3. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in view of the advisory issued on 16.3.2022, petitioner was not entitled to participate in the Mop Up round as he had already been allocated seat in the second counselling.

4. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner sought admission in Post Graduate course under State Quota. Respondents had issued Prospectus (Annexure P-1) for the year, 2021-2022. Clause 2.2 and 2.3 of the said Prospectus read as under:-

    “2.2. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9.5.2017 passed in writ petition (Civil) No.267/2017-DAR-US-SIAM Educational Trust and ors. Vs. Medical Council of India “After 2nd round of Counselling for All India Quota seats, the students who take the admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed/permitted to vacate the seats. Keeping in view of the said directions, candidates are advised to take a calculated decision of continuing in 2nd round of All India Quota as they would not be permitted to resign from 2nd round of AIQ. They will also not be allowed to participate in any Counselling after joining the Course.

2.3. Similarly the candidates are admitted under 50% State Quota in Govt. Medical Colleges of the State and intend to participate in Mop Up round/Extend Mop Up round (if any) are required to surrender PG seat (already occupied) within stipulated period as specified by the Common/Centralized Counselling Committee separately through notice. In case candidate do not surrender the seat within stipulated period, he/she will not be eligible to participated in the Mop Up round/Extend up round (if any).””

5. Thus, as per above provisions, candidates who were admitted in 50% State Quota, intend to participate in Mop Up round/Extended Mop Up round, were required to surrender PG seat already occupied by them within the stipulated period. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had been admitted under

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top