Aishwarya Lakshmi vs The Director of Medical Education

B. Rajendran, J.—Heard, Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sakthivel, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Anand David, learned counsel appearing for R3.

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to accommodate the petitioner in any of the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu as per the first respondent''s Notification dated 05.11.2013.

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was originally admitted in the fifth respondent college, viz., D.D. Medical College and Hospital, Tiruvallur Taluk. While so, the fourth respondent withdrew the Letter of Permission granted to the fifth respondent-college for admitting students in M.B.B.S. Course and this was given retrospective effect from the academic year 2010-2011. Therefore, the third respondent permitted the Government of Tamil Nadu to redeploy all the students in the said college to different Government Medical Colleges. The fourth respondent was also permitted to create additional seats for accommodating the 150 students who were studying in the fifth respondent-college. Accordingly, a Notification was issued by the first respondent in their website on 05.11.2013 calling upon the 150 students of the fifth respondent college admitted in the academic year 2010-11 for counselling on 07.11.2013 for their allotment in to the different Government Medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. Out of the 150 students, 149 students were accommodated in different colleges and the petitioner alone was left out to be accommodated. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a resident of Tamil Nadu and she lives in a very remote village in Kerala. Therefore, she was not aware of the Notification published in the website. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the direction to appear on 07.11.2013 was itself published only on 05.11.2013 giving only one day time, whereas the petitioner who resides in Kerala could not get the details. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the information only through the paper publication and she immediately came to Chennai and made representation to the third respondent. But the third respondent without any written communication, orally informed the petitioner that already 149 students have been accommodated and there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel would pray for accommodating the petitioner in any one of the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu as she is the only person in the 2010-11 batch, who missed the counselling held on 07.11.2013.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that fair chance was given to all the 150 students and merely because 149 students were admitted that cannot be a reason for admitting the petitioner. He would further state that classes also have been commenced from February 2014. Hence, he would submit that the petitioner cannot be accommodated at this stage.

The short point involved in this writ petition, when the Government has agreed to accommodate all the 150 students in various colleges and sent a communication through website on 05.11.2013 directing the students to appear for a counselling on 07.11.2013, why the petitioner alone should be left out. Admittedly, the petitioner is the resident of Kerala and she was not aware of the communication. It is also not the case of the respondents that all the students were informed individually and the notice was published only in their official website. Therefore, the petitioner has missed the opportunity. Naturally, when all the other 149 students have been given some concession, the same concession should be extended to the petitioner also. No doubt, there is a delay and in that process the petitioner also has suffered in not joining any of the colleges. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that for the counselling, which was conducted in November 2013, the classes have commenced only in February 2014. Therefore, the petitioner''s pathetic condition should be taken into consideration.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent-Selection Committee on 17.06.2014 and make a fresh representation and the second respondent, on such representation being made, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and admit the petitioner in the current batch or at least in the next batch as similar benefits have been extended to all the other 149 students of the 2010-11 batch, the petitioner alone cannot be left out in the lurch.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.