Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 993 (RAJ)

Yashu Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2001-06-01

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2001
Honble MISRA, J.–The petitioner-herein Yashu Saini has sought a direction from this Court in this writ petition to the respondents to grant him admission in a Medical College in Rajasthan in the quota of 15% seats which had been reserved for the students of All India Pre Medical Test (hereinafter shortly referred as ``AIPMT), but remained un-filled due to non joining of the students, treating them as surrendered seats in favour of the State quota so as to make it available to the students of Rajasthan like the petitioners, who have already, sought admission elsewhere in India under the AIPMT quota. (2). The un-disputed facts of the case are that the scheme for admission was formulated by the Supreme Court for admission into the MBBS Course in the matter of Shravan Kumar vs. DGHS (1), laying down guidelines therein regarding allotment of seats and the cut-off date by which admissions had to be completed. As per this scheme 15% seats by all States in India had to be reserved for the students qualifying for a seat on all India basis and rest of the 85% were to be filled by the students of the particular State, who qualified for such seats. The petitioner appeared in the All India Pre Medical Examination on 9.5.99 in which the petitioner was placed at rank 1017. He thereafter, appeared for the first counselling for the seats of AIPMT wherein he was allotted Baroda Medical College, where he has been admitted and is prosecuting his studies. Subsequently, when all admissions were complete and closed, he came to know that some seats falling in the quota of AIPMT were left un-filled in the Medical Colleges of the State of Rajasthan which raised his expectation that he could be allotted a seat in any of the Colleges in the Rajasthan State against the quota of AIPMT, since the un-filled seats in the All India quota should be treated as surrendered seats to the Medical College of the State quota in view of the scheme laid down by the Supreme Court referred to hereinbefore. As already stated, this scheme was formulated by the Supreme Court according to which the entire admission process had to be completed by 30th September each year. It appears that some seats in the AIPMT quota remained unfilled in the State of Rajasthan after 30th September by which date the admission process was complete. As already stated, this scheme was formulated by the Supreme Court according to which the entire admission process had to be completed by 30th September each year. It appears that some seats in the AIPMT quota remained unfilled in the State of Rajasthan after 30th September by which date the admission process was complete. When the petitioner became aware of this situation, he inferred that those seats could be treated as surrendered seats to the State of Rajasthan so that he would get a fresh chance to seek transfer/admission in a Medical College in Rajasthan which appears to be the reason for filing this writ petition. (3). The petitioners plea therefore, in this writ petition is two fold-firstly that the un-filled seats of the AIPMT quota which could not be filled should be treated as surrendered to the State of Rajasthan and hence should not be allowed to remain vacant and secondly that the limit of filling-up the seats by 30.09.1999 which was the limit fixed as per the scheme of the Supreme Court laid down in the case of Shravan Kumar (supra) should have been extended in view of the availability of the aforesaid seats, which should be treated as surrendered. (4). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it clearly appears that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner on both the counts has no force, for if the petitioner in the first instance expected extension of time from 30.09.1999, he could have done so only by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court seeking a direction for extending the dead line in view of his interpretation regarding surrender of seats of the AIPMT quota to the State of Rajasthan, for neither the State of Rajasthan nor the Central Admission Authority could have extended the dead line of 30.09.1999 by which date all admissions had to be completed as per the scheme of the Apex Court. (5). (5). In so far as the contention of the petitioner regarding his claim against the so called surrendered seats of the AIPMT quota to the State of Rajasthan is concerned, the same also cannot be entertained by this Court in my opinion for even if the seats of the AIPMT quota could be treated as surrendered to the State of Rajasthan which remained un-filled, it was clearly a consequence of the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court for admission into the MBBS Course for which there is no direction as it has no where been laid down that the vacant seats either in the State quota should be treated as surrendered to the All India quota on account of non joining of the students on these seats so that it could be filled-up even after the cut-off date of 30th September. The entire idea of the scheme is regarding distribution and allotment of seats between the State Government quota and AIPMT quota as also to put to an end to the admission process by 30th September of each year and the Supreme Court time & again has dismissed petitions refusing to extend the dead line of admission beyond 30th September whenever the students laid claim either against the un-filled seats of State quota or the Central quota. One such petition is the Vikas Sharma vs. DGHS (2), wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that in view of the existing scheme, relief prayed for by the petitioner could not be granted and hence the writ petition was dismissed. In the aforesaid case the petitioner Vikas Sharma had laid claim against the un-filled seats of the State quota beyond the cut-off date which was rejected as stated earlier. The only difference between the aforesaid case of Vikas Sharma and the instant case of Yashu Saini is that the petitioner-herein has laid claim against un- filled seats of the Central quota which he wants to be treated as surrendered seats to the State quota but the same does not make any difference as ultimately even if the seats were to be treated as surrendered seats to the State quota which itself is not beyond dispute, the last date for completing the admission process could not have been extended beyond 30.09.1999. (6). (6). If the petitioner is aggrieved of the scheme in any manner since he is seeking direction for allotment of the un-filled seats of the Central quota to the State quota by further expecting this Court to direct the respondents to cross the last date of admission of 30.09.1999, the appropriate remedy for him does not lie before this Court as it was open for him to move the Supreme Court for the appropriate relief. It is obvious that he ultimately is attempting to interpret a situation in his favour from the scheme laid down by the Supreme Court since there is no direction therein that the un-filled seats of the Central quota i.e. AIPMT quota could be treated as surrendered seats to the State quota so as to re-allocate it to the students who have already been granted admission in the AIPMT quota even after completion of the process of admission and after the cut-off date of 30.09.1999 by which date all admissions had to be completed-whether pertaining to State quota or the AIPMT quota. (7). The writ petition, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is not fit to be admitted and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.