Gurinderdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—Gurinderdeep Singh, petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India vide which he has prayed for a writ of certiorari to be issued for the quashing of the order Annexure P-2 and further prays for a direction to be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner against the paid seat to the BDS Course in the commencing session of 1998-99 on the basis of the PMET held on 6.6.1998 as candidates much lower in merit to him have been granted admission.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he appeared in PMET test held on 6.6.1998. He appeared in general category. His rank for the MBBS Course was at No. 982 and his ranking against the BDS Course was at No. 583. First counselling for admission to the BDS Course was to be held by respondent No. 3 on 3.8.1998 but later on it was deferred to 24.8.1998. The petitioner was not successful in getting the free seat in this counselling. A notice was put by respondent No. 3 under thesignatures of the Chairman and notice was displayed on the notice board of the premises of Dental College, Patiala, for admission against the paid seats that the candidates are required to approach the private Colleges directly. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondents 5 and 6 but was told that admission against the paid seats had already been completed. The grouse of the petitioner is that he had come to know that the candidates who are lower in rank than that of him had been given the paid scats in the BDS Course but he has been deprived of the seat. The petitioner met the Chairman of respondent No. 3 and brought to his notice about the state of affairs but to no effect. Consequently, the petitioner served a registered notice which too fell on the deaf ears of respondent No. 3. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice of this writ petition was given to the respondents who have filed reply and have denied the allegations. The stand of the State is that the petitioner appeared for counselling on 24.8.1998. Since his merit was less and therefore the free scat could not be given :o him. For the paid seats, the Selection Committee displayed notice which was within the knowledge of the petitioner. There is prima facie no proof that the petitioner ever approached the College for the paid seat. The College authorities had filled the paid seats according to the merit of the candidates whosoever approached them. The petitioner did not approach any College and, therefore, he could not get the paid seal. The stand of respondents 5 and 6 is that the petitioner never approached their College for the paid seat.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the prospectus it was declared that the process of counselling has to be done by !he Selection Committee and the counselling was done on 24.8.1998. It was illegal on the part of the Selection Committee to relegate the candidates to the college in-stead they should have conducted the cousnelling even for the paid seats on their own level and the ac-tion of relegating the candidates to the other collegers nothing but a device to help the candidates. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the process adopted by the Selection Committee to fill up the paid seats is in violation of the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court given in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., . On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it was to the knowledge of the petitioner that the paid seats were to be filled by the College authorises. The petitioner participated in the proceedings dated 24.8.1998. He never approached the colleges. There is no prima facie proof that he ever submitted any application to the college authorities for the gram of the paid seat and now he cannot have the grouse to say that he has been deprived of the seat by giving the paid seats to less meritorious candidates. According to the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, 2 years have already elapsed. At this juncture, the High Court should be slow in exercising the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have also considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The challenge by the petitioner is to the PMET Examination of 1998. 2 years have already elapsed. At this juncture, it would be highly detrimental to the interests of all other candidates who have been given admission in the paid seats and it would thus disturb the mode of selection. There is no prima facie proof on the record to suggest that the petitioner ever approached the college authorities in pursuance of the notice given by the Selection Committee. Hence, every candidate who is desirous to take the paid seat should approach the college authorities. The Selection Committee while relegating the powers to the College authorities prima facie has not acted with bias against any body. Every candidate who was desirous to take the paid seat was given the option to approach the College authorities.

In this views of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.