Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 513 (GUJ)

Mahida Hetavi Dhiredrasinh v. State of Gujarat

2009-07-28

AKIL KURESHI, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2009
JUDGMENT : K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Special Civil Application No.5411 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents nos. 1 & 2 to accord preferential treatment to the local students within the Surat Municipal Corporation in the matter of admission to First M.B.B.S. in respondent no.3College for all the available seats for academic year 200910 in the same manner as provided for in the preceding academic year 200809 and also for other consequential reliefs. When the matter came up for hearing Mr. D.C. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Medical Council of India had increased the intake of students in respondent no.3College from 100 to 150 and hence the State Government has to issue a corrigendum following the Notification dated 2nd July 2007 for filling up the additional 50 seats. Taking note of the same, Special Civil Application was disposed of by this Court on 03.07.2009 leaving it to the State Government to pass appropriate order. 2. Petitioners have come up with the present Miscellaneous Civil Application to recall our order dated 03.07.2009 and to hear the matter afresh, due to change of circumstances, we have allowed the request and heard the Special Civil Application. 3. Heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General and Shri Mrugen K. Purohit for the Surat Municipal Corporation. 4. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondents nos. 1 & 2 may accord preferential treatment to the local students of Surat in the matter of admission to First MBBS for the academic year 200910 in respondent no.3College in respect of all the available seats, i.e., 150 seats, in the same manner as was provided in the preceding academic year 200809. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and another, 1999 (8) SCC 139 and submitted that Apex Court has upheld reservation of seats for students who are residing within the Municipal Corporation limits, therefore, same principle would apply in the case of Surat Municipal Corporation as well for filling up the additional 50 seats. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General submitted that the stand of the State Government is that there must be parity in the matter of seats allotment in respect of Medical Colleges run by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as well as Surat Municipal Corporation. Learned Advocate General referred to the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2009, in particular Rule 5A, which deals with admission in certain Municipal Colleges. Learned Advocate General submitted that so far as N.H.L. Municipal Medical College is concerned, out of 150 seats, 23 seats are kept for NonResident Indian candidates and remaining 127 seats are filled up on the basis of Merit List prepared under Rule 11, out of which 68 seats are filled up from local candidates. At that time, only 100 seats were earmarked for Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research. Out of 100 seats, 15 seats are kept for NonResident Indian candidates. Remaining 85 seats are to be filled up on the basis of the Merit List prepared under Rule 11, out of which 70 seats are to be filled up from the local candidates. Learned Advocate General submitted that uniform pattern has to be followed in the case of Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research as well, and consequently, out of 150 seats available, 23 seats should go to NonResident Indians and 70 seats would go to local students and 57 seats should go to State quota. Even then, learned Advocate General submitted, that Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research has got 2 seats more than N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, thereby taking care of the interests of the local students of both the Corporations. Learned counsel appearing for the Surat Municipal Corporation also took the same stand. 6. We notice that learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the Surat Municipal Corporation have taken a consistent view that 70 seats are earmarked for local students out of 150 seats in the Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research almost in parity with the system followed by the N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad. Since Surat Municipal Corporation has also taken the same stand so far as their College is concerned, in our view, petitioners have no locus standi to insist that more number of seats be earmarked for the local students. Since Surat Municipal Corporation has also taken the same stand so far as their College is concerned, in our view, petitioners have no locus standi to insist that more number of seats be earmarked for the local students. This is purely a policy matter which the Municipal Corporation has to decide. Petitioners are aspiring for admission to First MBBS course in Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research stating that they are permanent residents of Surat and they have acquired qualification from Colleges situated within the limits of Surat Municipal Corporation. Unless there is a statutory rule, fixing percentage as suggested by the petitioners, the claim raised by them cannot be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Special Civil Application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.