Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 947 (HP)

RAJESH SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-11-12

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. PETITIONER has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction against the respondents to process his claim for D.M. Cardiology seat after the result of moderation is announced. The moderation is necessitated on account of the decision of this Court, dated 26th September, 2013. The petitioner applied for some information under Right to Information Act on 28th September, 2013, which information could have answered the grievance of the petitioner and justified the assertion of the petitioner that he is entitled to admission to D.M. Cardiology course. That information was supplied on 3rd October, 2013. After receipt of the said information, the petitioner made representation on 7th October, 2013 and since no response was received, has rushed to this Court on 15th October, 2013. The petition was adjourned from time to time to enable the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner herein. The University invited comments regarding the papers and after receipt of the same, the matter was placed before the Vice Chancellor on 7th November, 2013. The Vice Chancellor, in turn, has directed to revise the result on the basis of moderated key answer by the paper setter. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Evaluation Committee on 11th November, 2013, who has prepared the revised results. Those results are yet to be declared. 3. COUNSEL for the University, on instructions, submits that if the University is permitted to declare those results and if the petitioner is found eligible in order of merit, his claim can be considered against the vacant seat of D.M. Cardiology. That, however, will be subject to the permission, to be granted by the Court to admit the petitioner beyond the period specified by the apex Court as 30th September, 2013 for the super -specialty admission as last date. This submission is canvassed on the basis of observations made in paragraph 30 of the decision of the Apex Court in Asha Vs. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others (2012) 7 SCC 389 . 4. This submission is canvassed on the basis of observations made in paragraph 30 of the decision of the Apex Court in Asha Vs. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others (2012) 7 SCC 389 . 4. COUNSEL for the University, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner is admitted pursuant to order of this Court, if found to be eligible and in order of merit, would be able to complete the course and become eligible to appear in the examination at the end of three years. Learned Advocate General, on instructions, submits that even if the petitioner is admitted hereafter pursuant to the order of the Court, because of the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioner may be able to complete the course before the examination for D.M. Cardiology falls due at the end of three years and if the requisite parameters, specified by the Medical Council of India, cannot be fulfilled before the said examination, the petitioner be permitted to appear in the following examination. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will have no objection for such condition. 5. IN view of the submissions made across the Bar, and including of the counsel for the University as well as the State, we permit the University to declare the result prepared by the Evaluation Committee forthwith and if it is found that the petitioner is eligible and in order of merit deserves admission, would be admitted against D.M. Cardiology course, subject to the condition that the petitioner will be eligible to appear for the examination only after completion of requisite parameters, specified by the Medical Council of India, as a special case. We are inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner as we find that the petitioner was not responsible for the situation and because of unavoidable circumstances had to wait for the declaration of results by the Evaluation Committee of the University till now. If the petitioner is entitled to admission against the vacant seat of D.M. Cardiology, needless to observe that the petitioner will have to undergo viva voce test and other compliances to be made before admission. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.