AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed by a First year MBBS student of Deccan Medical College, Hyderabad. He appeared for Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test-98 (better known by its cognomin EAMCET-98) held on 14-5-1998, the results of which were announced on 31-5-1998. The petitioner got a rank of 1237. He being a BC candidate appeared for the counselling and he was selected for first year MBBS course in Deccan Medical College, Hyderabad. These facts are not specifically stated in the affidavit. But the petitioner''s Counsel stated this at the Bar having regard to the two documents filed before this Court.
Large number of students belonging to Backward class filed writ petitions before this Court being WP No.33456 of 1998 and Batch. The main grievance in those writ petitions was that students belonging to reserved classes who obtained merit rank and who ought to have been shown as admitted to OC seats, though were admitted, were counted for the purpose of 25% reservation provided for Backward classes which has resulted in depriving the petitioners of their legitimate rights to be admitted to BC seats. If the meritorious students who were admitted to backward class seats are treated as having been admitted-to OC seats, the resultant vacant seats shall necessarily have to be offered to BC students. This contention was accepted by a learned single Judge of this Court having regard to the binding law laid down by the Apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, . Therefore, the learned single Judge by his order 1-12-1998 allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:-
"In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in this case if the State is directed to work out the details and find out how many of the students belonging to non-reserved categories would have to be displaced if the admissions are to be made strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah''s case (supra). After arriving at the total number of such students, consider the cases of each of the petitioners before this Court in this batch of writ petitions as against the number indicated above, provide admission to such of the petitioners against the above mentioned number of students in the Medical Colleges after obtaining appropriate permission from the appropriate bodies for creating such number of additional seats, only for this academic year".
The University of Health Sciences, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, carried the matter in appeal. A Division Bench of this Court affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge. Thereafter, the authorities worked out the details and found that 74 seats belonging to non-reserved categories would have to be displaced if the admissions are to be made strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Riiesh R. Sah''s case (supra). In view of this, the Government, the 4th respondent herein, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.503, dated 27-9-1999 directing to create 74 supernumerary seats to be filed up by backward class students, who are the petitioners before this Court. When the University announced the date for counselling, some of the backward class students who did not approach this Court earlier filed writ petitions being WP No. 19843 of 1999. The learned single Judge directed that the backward class students who did not approach this Court may also be considered for admission to one of the 74 supernumerary seats to be filled up by backward class students.
At this stage, the petitioner who is already prosecuting the 1 Year MBBS course has filed this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he should also be considered over one of the 74 supernumerary seats to be filled up duringthe counselling on 13-11-1999, and in case he is selected, the learned Counsel submits that he would be entitled to be admitted either in a Government College or to a free seat in a private college.
I am afraid, the petitioner who has admittedly completed the first year of MBBS course in Deccan Medical College, Hyderabad, cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of this Court and also the G.O.Ms.No.503 dated 27-9-1999. My view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajiv Mittal Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University and Others, . In the case (supra) Maharshi Dayanand University conducted entrance examination for admission to MBBS in the State of Haryana. Rohtak Medical College is affiliated to the said University and it had 60 MBBS free seats available. Out of those 49 were to be filled up from open category candidates and the remaining 11 seats were reserved for BC candidates. One Sunil Yadav who secured S.No. 1 among the BC students was placed at S.No.62 in the merit position. On 9-9-1996 when first counselling was held to select the candidates for respective colleges, Mr. Sunil Yadav, though first among the BC Students, did not get admission in the general category because of his low merit position in the overall merit list. On 10-9-1996 counselling was held for reserved seats. On that day, being No.1 among the BC candidates, he was selected and was admitted to MBBS course at Rohtak Medical College in the reserved category. On 26-9-1996 second counselling was held for a few general seats which fell vacant. Students upto S.No.60 in the merit list were granted admission and still one seat in the general category remained to be filled up. The candidate at S.No.61 did not appear for counselling and Mr. Sunil Yadav, though at S.No.62 also did not appear for the reason that he was already admitted to a BC seat. Therefore, the seat was offered to Mr. Rajiv Mittal, who was at S.No.66, who accepted and joined the college. The 3rd respondent before the Supreme Court who belonged to reserved category did not get a seat because he was placed at S.No. 12 among the reserved category students whereas there were only 11 seats for the reserved category. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court contending that if Mr. Sunil Yadav is adjusted against the general category seat which fell vacant on 26-9-1996 which was subsequently offered to Mr. Rajiv Mittal, the seat reserved for BC., student would be available to the third respondent. The University contended before the High Court that as Mr. Sunil Yadav was already admitted as a BC candidate on 10-9-1996 in the first counselling, he lost his claim to the open category seat in the counselling held on 26-9-1996 and therefore Mr. Sunil Yadav did not appear for the second counselling. However, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the third respondent holding that Mr. Sunil Yadav should have been adjusted against the one seat in general category which was offered to Mr. Rajiv Mittal during the second counselling and the resultant reserved seat vacated by Mr. Sunil Yadav should be offered to the 3rd respondent. Taking into consideration the fact that the third respondent had already been admitted in the Medical College, Agroha, Hissar, the High Court directed that the 3rd respondent be shifted to Rohtak Medical College by shifting Mr. Rajiv Mittal to Agroha Medical College. The matter was carried to Supreme Court by Mr. Rajiv Mittal.
The submission made on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court is that as Mr. Sunil Yadav was already admitted to a reserved seat in the first counselling, the High Court could not direct that he be considered for a general category seat in the second counselling. On behalf ofthe respondents reliance was placed on Note 2 in the Information brochure of the University which provided that candidate who apply for either reserved category or for reserved and open categories will be considered first in the open category and that in case he is not selected in the open category he be considered for reserved category. After noticing the observations of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 6 SCR 321 , the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court. Dealing with the effect of Note 2 in the information brochure, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"If as a result of first counselling, all the seats, which are available, are filled then no further counselling takes place. Where however some seats become available then it appears that second, third or if the need arise, fourth counselling does take place but in such a manner that normally there should be no delay in the commencement of the course of study. Furthermore, unless and until counselling takes place, no candidate who has been granted admission on the basis of the counselling, is allowed to change his college merely because a seat in another college has fallen vacant. The seats, if any, which fall vacant, can only be filled if and when counselling takes place where the candidates who have already been selected may have an option of shifting to another college. An appropriate analogy of the system is that of a booking chart for a dramatic performance which has to take place in the future. The people standing in the queue reserve or book their seats out of those which are available according to their preferences. Once the chart fills up the booking closes. Only sometimes, if tickets are returned they may be reissued. But once the dramatic performance starts no one is allowed to enter. Just counselling for seats to medical colleges must stop once the course of study commences".
The petitioner was admitted in Deccan Medical College, Hyderabad in November, 1998. Though the affidavit is silent on this aspect, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed one year course. In view of this, the question of the petitioner being considered for counselling pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.503 dated 27-9-1999 which itself is issued to implement the judgment of this Court, does not arise. As held by the Supreme court in Rajiv Mittal''s case (supra), when once the course of study commences, there should be no counselling for the students who are already admitted and completed part of the course. Therefore, the petitioner has no enforceable right at this distance of time. For these reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.