Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1407 (RAJ)

Dr. Jayesh Mittal v. State of Rajasthan

2003-10-15

S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the writ petition an its enclosures. 2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of the following relief in the writ petition, "Hence prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure 5) passed by respondent no. 3 and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in Diploma in Anaesthesiology Course at M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar with all consequential benefits. That the cost of the writ petition may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. That any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly he passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. Annexure-5 is the communication from the M.P Shah Medical College, Jamnagar with reference to letter dated 15.3.2003 of the Directorate General of Health Services (ME) to the petitioner that he has not reported within fifteen clays for PG Diploma in Anaesthesiology and thus he cannot be allowed to join this course. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his MBBS Course from Bhartiya Vidyapeeth Medical College, Pune in February, 2003. On 12.1.2003 the All India Institute of Medical Sciences conducted the examination for All India Entrance Examination PG and PG Diploma for the Year 2003. The petitioner appeared in this examination. He was allotted Roll No. 7121874. The result of that examination was declared on 15.2.2003. The petitioner was declared successful therein. He stood at 1338 in the merit. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences directed the petitioner to appear before the Director General of Health Services at New Delhi. As per the instructions vide letter dated 18.2.2003 the petitioner was required to submit the provisional and permanent registration certificate before the Directorate General of Health Services (ME) at New Delhi. 5. The permanent registration certificate was Issued by the Maharashtra Medical Council on 7th of March, 2003 to the petitioner. It was sent to the petitioner by post which was received by the petitioner after fifteen days i.e. somewhere around 25/26th of March, 2003. The petitioner appeared before the Directorate General of Health Services (ME) at New Delhi on 15th of March, 2003. It was sent to the petitioner by post which was received by the petitioner after fifteen days i.e. somewhere around 25/26th of March, 2003. The petitioner appeared before the Directorate General of Health Services (ME) at New Delhi on 15th of March, 2003. He was selected for the admission to PG Diploma in Anaesthesiology at M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar. On 27th of March, 2003 the respondent no. 2 issued an allotment to the petitioner and it was written therein that the petitioner should join the allotted College within 15 days from the date of this letter or latest by 6th of April, 2003 which ever is earlier, failing which he shall forfeit the claim for a seat under All India PG. Quota 2003. 6. The petitioner appeared before the M.P. Shah Medical College on 1st of April, 2003 i.e. within the stipulated period. The M.P. Shah Medical College denied the petitioner to join the college and course on 1st of April, 2003 and taken the signature of the petitioner in the register and the copy of the order dated 1st of April, 2003 has also been sent to him at Sikar. The petitioner approached to the Office of the non-petitioner no. 2 on 4th of April, 2003 along with his father, Dr. G.S. Mittel and submitted a representation. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the delay was there in reporting for admission as Maharashtra Medical Council has made delay in issuing the permanent registration certificate. It Is not the fault of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the letter dated 15.3.2003 of the respondent no. 2 the petitioner should have joined on or before 6th of April, 2003. In his submission the allotment letter dated 15th of April, 2003 was given to the petitioner on 27th of March, 2003 and thereafter within the reasonable time he has reported for admission. The calculation of days period should have been made from the date of delivery of the allotment letter. 8. It is unfortunate that in such a serious matter where question of admission is involved in the P.G. Diploma Course, the respondent no. 2 has not bothered to put appearance. Even it has not cared and concerned to send the reply by post. It appears that Sri Bhanwar Bagri, Advocate, has filed memo of appearance in the matter. 8. It is unfortunate that in such a serious matter where question of admission is involved in the P.G. Diploma Course, the respondent no. 2 has not bothered to put appearance. Even it has not cared and concerned to send the reply by post. It appears that Sri Bhanwar Bagri, Advocate, has filed memo of appearance in the matter. I find from the memo of appearance that he is the Senior Standing Counsel but he has also not cared and concerned to remain present in the court at the time of hearing of the matter. 9. Prima facie I find that the petitioner may not be blamed for this delay. Be that as it may, instead of deciding this matter in the absence of the reply to the writ petition on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and other respondents. I consider it to be appropriate that the respondent no. 2 first to look into the grievance of the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the terms that this writ petition shall be considered a representation of the petitioner in the matter. The respondent No. 2 has to decide the same within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. For the convenience of the respondent no. 2 it is expected from the petitioner that he would send the complete set of this writ petition along with copy of this order to the respondent no. 2. In case the decision of the respondent no. 2:n the matter goes adverse to the petitioner, liberty is granted to him to apply for revival of this writ petition by filing a simple note.Writ Petition Treated as Representation with Liberty to Revive if Necessary. *******