Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 918 (MP)

Deepak Kumar Dugaya v. State of M. P.

2010-09-10

ALOK ARADHE, S.R.ALAM

body2010
ORDER 1. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the merit list of in-service candidates of Pre PG Examination-2010 and prayed for a direction to Respondents to grant him 50 marks instead of 30 marks for rendering five years services in tribal area as per rules. 3. Facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition, briefly stated, are that Petitioner being a doctor in Primary Health Center, Richfal in District Khandwa had appeared in common entrance examination called as 'Pre PG Test-2010' held on 28-2-2010 conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal (in short 'Board') for admission to Post Graduate Medical (MD and MS), Post Graduate Diploma and Dental (MDS) Courses in Medical and Dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A consolidated merit list of in-service candidates of Pre-PG Test-2010 was issued on 5-4-2010 contained in Annexure P/l wherein Petitioner's name was shown at Sr. No. 70 and he was awarded 123 marks in the said test. Thereafter, counselling was held but due to lesser marks the Petitioner was not allotted any seat on account of the fact that he had secured less marks. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Petitioner prayed for a direction to the Respondent to allot him 50 marks instead of 30 marks i.e. 20 additional marks for rendering service in tribal area for a period of five years. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their return in which the fact that Petitioner has rendered service in tribal area for the period of five years has not been disputed. In para 5 of the return, it has been admitted on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 that on account of inadvertence, there was a mistake in issuing the certificate to the Petitioner and by mistake the marks were awarded to him under the assumption that he has served under the rural area whereas in fact the Petitioner was entitled to more marks which were prescribed for the tribal area. However, it has been averred that Petitioner did not take proper action at the appropriate time and therefore at this point of time when the process of admission is over, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. 5. However, it has been averred that Petitioner did not take proper action at the appropriate time and therefore at this point of time when the process of admission is over, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. 5. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that admittedly the Petitioner has rendered services for more than five years in tribal area and; therefore, he is entitled to 50 marks. For default on the part of the Respondents No. 1 to 3, the Petitioner cannot be penalised and cannot be deprived of his legitimate claim. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vijay Jaimni v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 461 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ku. Akanksha Rajput v. State of M.P. and Ors. ILR 2007 (MP) 1081. 6. On the other hand, Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, while opposing the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that Petitioner was well aware that a certificate has been issued to him and the marks have been awarded to him for serving in rural area and; thus, right from the beginning the Petitioner was aware that a wrong certificate is issued to him yet he did not initiate any proceeding in time and therefore no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the Petitioner has served in tribal area for a period of more than five years and he is entitled to 50 marks. If additional 20 marks are allotted to the Petitioner, he would have been admitted in Diploma-in-Child Health course as per his merit position. However, on account of the mistake committed by the officer of the Respondent No. 1, a wrong certificate was issued to the Petitioner, as a result of which, the Petitioner was deprived from seeking admission in Diploma-in-Child Health course to which he was admittedly entitled. It is also relevant to mention here that Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also initiated an action against the officer who had issued the certificate negligently to the Petitioner. For the fault committed by the officer of the Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer. 8. It is also relevant to mention here that Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also initiated an action against the officer who had issued the certificate negligently to the Petitioner. For the fault committed by the officer of the Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer. 8. For the aforementioned reason and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Jaimni v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (supra), we direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to give admission to the Petitioner in Diploma-in-Child Health course for the academic year 2011-2012 within the intake capacity of the Medical College. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.