Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2890 (RAJ)

Amit Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-08

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 -Mahatma Gandhi National Institute of Medical Sciences (for short the institute) submits that he sought instructions from the management of the institute whether the management is ready to allow the petitioner to pursue his study or not, though, the petitioner is not entitled to continue his study in view of the Honble Supreme Courts Judgment . As the petitioner appeared in PCPMT and admittedly, he secured lesser marks, so admission was not given to him in MBBS course. Thereafter, he was called in counseling to get the admission in dental faculty, the petitioner forego the said opportunity and did not appear in the counseling. 2. Further in view of the directions issued by Honble Supreme Court in case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh, reported in 2002 (7) SCC 258 , the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria and guidelines for admissions and categorically stated that if any student is admitted after commencement of the course, it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule. In case of Mriduldhar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65 , Honble Supreme Court has laid down the time schedule for completion of admission process of MBBS course and last date upto which the student can be admitted against the vacancies arising due to any reason is fixed as 30th September. 3. To fill up such, the respondent institute issued a notice on 29.09.2004 for resultant/unfilled vacancies of MBBS/BDS course, if any. Pursuant to the admission notice, the petitioner also applied afresh, but was not having the bank guarantee or solvent security, therefore, he was not considered for admission and the lesser meritorious candidates were given admission against the un-filled vacancies, therefore, this notification is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. 4. This Court on 010.2004 issued the notices to the respondents. On 011.2004, the Respondent No. 2 was directed to allow the petitioner to pursue his study in MBBS provisionally subject to decision of this writ petition. Pursuant to the interim directions, the petitioner has pursuaded his study. 5. 4. This Court on 010.2004 issued the notices to the respondents. On 011.2004, the Respondent No. 2 was directed to allow the petitioner to pursue his study in MBBS provisionally subject to decision of this writ petition. Pursuant to the interim directions, the petitioner has pursuaded his study. 5. On 210.2005, this Court also directed the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner, which would be subject to the decision of the writ petition. The result of the petitioner was declared in which he was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner has moved application that he may be allowed to appear in the due papers as the examinations are going to be held from 10.11.2005. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Additional Advocate General strongly objected that admission of the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. Admittedly, the petitioner deposited the fee on 011.2004 but after 30th September and regulatory authority is Medical Council of India, which has not been made party in this writ petition, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable. But candidly, learned Counsel for the respondent agreed that since the petitioner has persuaded his study for a year, they can only allow him to pursue his further study in the session 2006-2007 as in the current session they have already filled up all the vacancies of the management quota. They can keep one seat of management quota for the petitioner by reducing the management quota allotted to the petitioner institute. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in case of Mriduldhar (Supra), has clearly indicated that if any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year. 8. In view of the observations made by Honble Supreme Court and the statement made on behalf of the Respondents No. 2, the petitioner is allowed to pursue his study in the next session i.e., 2006-2007. 8. In view of the observations made by Honble Supreme Court and the statement made on behalf of the Respondents No. 2, the petitioner is allowed to pursue his study in the next session i.e., 2006-2007. Since, the petitioner already appeared in the Pre University Examination, for remanded students commenced from 210.2005, the respondents are further directed to allow the petitioner to give examinations of the papers in which he was declared failed, alongwith the remanded students commencing from 10.11.2005. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of . This Judgment is in persona not in ram and be not treated as precedent.