Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1274 (PAT)

Asha Kumari Giri v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-19

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsellor the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to allow her to take admission in M.B.B.S. course in Anugrah Narayan Memorial Medical College, Gaya. 3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination under the Disabled Quota (General) category. By letter dated 7.7.2006 issued by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board she was directed to appear for counselling on 28.7.2006 at 9.00 A.M. Her merit serial number under the general category was shown as 1898 and under the DQ (Gen.) category as 10. The petitioner appeared for counselling on 28.7.2006 and was selected and allotted B.V.Sc. & A.H.Course in the Bihar Veterinary College, Patna. Thereafter on 23.8.2006 a general notice was published by the respondent-Board inviting/calling the candidates for counselling as some vacancies in the MBBS and BDS courses occurred, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner accordingly, again appeared for counselling on 28.8.2006 as per the notice and was selected as a successful candidate in the MBBS Course in D.Q. (General) category and was allotted a seat in Anugrah Narayan Memorial Medical College, Gaya. However, when she went to take her admission in the MBBS course, she was told by the respondent-authorities that she cannot be admitted as per the order/direction of the respondent-Board because due to mistake she has been allotted a seat in the MBBS course. Subsequently, by letter/order dated 29.8.2006, the said provisional allotment order was cancelled which has also been challenged by filing an amendment application. 4. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, the Examination Board. In the counter affidavit it is stated that reshuffling/second counselling was done by advertisement dated 23.8.2006 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 9.8.2006 passed in CWJC No. 8814/2006 to redistribute the seats to disabled candidates against disabled quota seats and thus, it was directed that disabled quota candidates already admitted during first counselling can appear in the counselling to take advantage of seat allotment in MBBS course distributed institutions-wise for disabled candidates. It is stated that total 9 seats were available for all disabled quota for MBBS course in the Government Medical Colleges, out of which 5 seats were available for disabled quota candidates of general category and 4 seats were earmarked to be distributed among DQ candidates of reserved categories. So far as the disabled quota (General) category candidates are concerned, five seats were allotted and the candidates having merit SI. Nos. DQ-Gen-1, DQ Gen-2, DQ Gen-3, DQ Gen-5, and DQ Gen-6 were selected and offered the courses. The candidate at SI. No. DQ Gen-4 was absent during the counselling. However, due to inadvertent error the petitioner who was at merit SI. No. DQ Gen-10 was also issued admission order in MBBS Course in Anugrah Narayan Memorial Medical College, Gaya since DQ Gen-7, DQ Gen-8 and DQ Gen-9 were absent during the counselling. With respect to the reserved category of disabled candidates one seat was allotted to DQ SC-2, two seats were allotted to DQ EBC-2 and DQ EBC-4 and one seat to DQ BC-9. The said posts were filled up by the candidates of the respective categories having highest merit position in the respective reserved categories after those who had been able to secure a seat in the DQ (General) category on the basis of their overall performance in the combined merit list. Such details are clearly given in Annexure-A of the supplementary counter affidavit from which it is evident that the allotment have been made keeping in view the general merit serial position of DQ candidates and reserved category merit position of the DQ candidates. It is evident from the same that the petitioner was a DQ General category at SI. No. 10 in the merit list and she could not have been allotted the seat among five seats reserved for DQ general candidates and thus the allotment made to her earlier must have been on account of inadvertent error of the authority concerned and the. same has rightly been cancelled later on. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a faint effort to show that the petitioner is placed at SI. No. 10 of the DQ (General) category whereas one Chandan Kumar placed at Merit Serial No. DQ Gen-19 has been allotted a seat in MBBS Course in Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur. same has rightly been cancelled later on. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a faint effort to show that the petitioner is placed at SI. No. 10 of the DQ (General) category whereas one Chandan Kumar placed at Merit Serial No. DQ Gen-19 has been allotted a seat in MBBS Course in Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur. There is no merit in the said submission since the said Chandan Kumar apart from having merit SI. DQ (General)-19 in the general merit list he had also merit SI. No. DQ BC-9 in the B.C.category of disabled quota and since the top four candidates of DQ BC category had also qualified on the strength of their performance in the DQ (General) category having respectively merit SI. Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the candidates having DQ (BC) merit SI. Nos. 5 and 6 having absented themselves and merit serial Nos. 7 and 8 in the DQ (BC) category having been declared unfit, the said Chandan Kumar, SI. No. 9 in DQ (BC) category was rightly allotted a seat under the DQ (BC) Quota and his merit serial position as DQ (Gen)-19 has no relevance vis-avis the case of the petitioner since he has not been allotted any seat in general category. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.