Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 280 (GAU)

Meraj Alam v. State of Assam and Ors.

1999-08-19

BRIJESH KUMAR, D.N.CHOWDHURY

body1999
Brijesh Kumar C. J. — Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. BC Das, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ appeal, the matter relates to admission to the Post Graduate Course of MS (General Surgery) pertaining to the session 1994-95. It appears that for the aforesaid session, the petitioner had given his preferences for different courses in Guwahati Medical College, including for MS (General Surgery). The petitioner could not be accommodated according to his choice and was allowed a seat in Silchar Medical College in the course, DLO ENT. It appears that some seats in different specialities fell vacant in different Medical Colleges and as a , consequence thereof fresh admission notice was issued by the Director of Medical Education, Assam on 24.11.96. The petitioner was allotted a seat in MS (Opthalmology) at Guwahati Medical College and subsequently he was allotted a seat in MS (General Surgery) in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh on 24.4.97, though his preference was for Guwahati Medical College. He took admission in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, but, immediately thereafter he came to know that one seat in MS (General Surgery) in Guwahati Medical College was surrendered by one Dr. Narasimha Murthy B K in May, 1997 itself. The petitioner promptly made a representation on 13.5.97 for being accommodated against the surrendered seat in MS (General Surgery) in Guwahati Medical College for the session 1994-95. The Govt, it seems, took its own time in considering the matter and it was after more than a year that the petitioner was communicated the decision of the State Govt expressing its inability to accommodate the petitioner/appellant against the vacant seat in MS (General Surgery) in Guwahati Medical College observing that about a year had already passed. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner/appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court and this Court thought it fit that the Medical Council of India may consider his case. With this direction the petition was disposed of by order dated February 16,1999. 3. The petitioner preferred the present appeal against the said direction. However, in the meantime, the Medical Council of India considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his prayer by order dated 19.4.99. Learned counsel a for the appellant submits that this decision was not communicated to the petitioner/ appellant. 3. The petitioner preferred the present appeal against the said direction. However, in the meantime, the Medical Council of India considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his prayer by order dated 19.4.99. Learned counsel a for the appellant submits that this decision was not communicated to the petitioner/ appellant. It has, however, been placed before us by the learned counsel for the State. The photo-stat copy of the order furnished by the State counsel be placed on the record. 4. The decision of the Medical Council of India seems to be guided by a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 22316 of 1996, Citizen of India vs. State of Karnataka & others. We find that the said decision is in relation to the powers of the State Govt to fix the intake capacity, or, so say, to fix the number of seats in different courses, which according to the statutory Rules, are vested only in the Medical Council of India. In the present case, we find, it is not a case of increase in the fixed number of seats in a particular course in a particular session. We find that against the seats for the session 1994-95, a petitioner/appellant was initially provided admission in some Diploma course. Thereafter, a fresh admission notice was issued on 24.11.96, may be, due to the fact that some candidates may not have turned up, or for any other reason whatsoever necessitating issuance of fresh notice. Thus, the petitioner/appellant, and may be others as well, was given admission in MS (General Surgery) in Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, in the year 1997, in pursuance of the fresh notice dated 24.11.96; but the petitioner could not get the Medical College of his choice. Immediately, without losing time, the petitioner approached the authorities for accommodating him in Guwahati Medical College on surrender of one of the seats by a candidate in MS (General Surgery). Had the authorities taken prompt decision in the matter, the problem, which according to the authorities arose by lapse of time, would not have arisen at all. Undoubtedly, the seat.became available in MS (General Surgery) course in Guwahati Medical College in May, 1997, immediately after the readjustment was made as against the seats for the session 1994-95. Had the authorities taken prompt decision in the matter, the problem, which according to the authorities arose by lapse of time, would not have arisen at all. Undoubtedly, the seat.became available in MS (General Surgery) course in Guwahati Medical College in May, 1997, immediately after the readjustment was made as against the seats for the session 1994-95. It appears that it is perhaps inherent in the system that some adjustment or readjustment has to be made on some of the students or candidates not turning up or surrendering their seats or due to change of their courses from one speciality to another for the aforesaid reasons. The present case does not relate to increase of the number of seats in MS (General Surgery) for the Session 1994-95; but it is the similar kind of arrangement which was made by the authorities themselves, and rightly, in respect whereof a fresh notice was issued on 24.11.96. There is no dispute relating to merit of the petitioner/ appellant, by reason of which it may not be possible to pursue his course in Guwahati Medical College, which was his preference. There is also no dispute that one such seat was surrendered in may, 1997 and the petitioner/appellant had immediately applied for being accommodated within the intake capacity fixed by the competent authorities for the course of MS (General Surgery) for the said session, namely, 1994-95. That being the position, there should not have been any difficulty in conceding to the request made by the petitioner/appellant in May, 1997 itself when, as indicated above, fresh notice was issued for allotment of seats. Such adjustments are inevitable. In the above circumstances, in our view, the Medical Council of India has not correctly placed reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in 1999 adjustments have been permitted in some specialities as against the session 1994-95. One such instance brought to our notice is that of some Dr. Ashit Chandra Debnath, who has been given admission in MS (Opthalmology) in Silchar Medical College. 6. We finally dispose of this appeal with a direction to the State Govt to take a decision in the matter in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within a period of two weeks of furnishing a certified copy of this order before the appropriate authority.