Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 32 (MEG)

Pankaj Kumar Bathnotra v. Union of India

2014-03-14

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment S.R. Sen, J. This instant writ petition is directed against the impugned selection list for MBBS Courses in the State of Meghalaya for the year 2012-13. The brief fact of the case in nut shell is that "the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) for setting aside Impugned Selection of the candidates for the MBBS Course for the Year 2012-13 in respect of the State of Meghalaya published in the web-site of the Respondent No. 2 dated 3rd September 2012, whereby the respondent No. 2 had selected the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 as the candidates for the said Course being lesser in marks than the petitioner, which is highly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and unfair and also prayed for passing necessary direction to the Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner for the said Course and other reliefs as deem fit and proper considering the nature of the case. The factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioner had applied admission for MBBS Course for the year 2012-13 in the State of Meghalaya conducted by Respondent No. 2 in spite of he being secured the highest marks but was not selected for the said Course. The petitioner also submitted that, there were some candidates who did not appear for the written examination but they were selected for the said Course, in total disregards to the rules and regulations as well as in highly bias manner, arbitrary, illegally and with mala fide manner, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and facts and as such prayed for quashing of the said selection of the candidates for MBBS Courses in the State of Meghalaya for the year 2012-13. Therefore, it is a fit case for this Hon'ble Court to issue a writ directing the authority to select the petitioner for the said Course. Hence, this petition." 2. Mr. R. Jha, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner argued that, in spite of the fact that the petitioner secured 79 out of 200 was not allowed for admission whereas the other respondents mentioned in the petition secured 68, 76, 71, 75 etc. were allowed for admission. The learned counsel further contended that while selection of the candidates, merit was not considered which should be criteria for admission. 3. were allowed for admission. The learned counsel further contended that while selection of the candidates, merit was not considered which should be criteria for admission. 3. On the other hand, Mr. R. Gurung, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the State respondent submitted that, the petitioner never applied through State quota and he had actually applied for open quota. Therefore, respondents who secured less marks than the petitioner cannot be equated or considered with the candidates who secured less marks in the State quota. The learned State counsel further contended that there are nine seats allotted for the State of Meghalaya, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not correct, so the petition may be dismissed. 4. Mr. D.K. Acharjee, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the private parties endorsed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the State respondents. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner did not apply through the State quota. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of Annexure-1, it is found that nine seats are reserved for the Meghalaya, eight seats for Nagaland, four seats for Arunachal Pradesh and three seats for Mizoram. On further perusal of the Annexure-IV, i.e. Mark sheet of the NEIGRIHMS MBBS Entrance Examination-2012, it appears that the petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 245 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bathnotra who secured 79% of 200 and the other respondents secured 68, 76, 71, 75 etc. On evaluation of marks of the entrance examination, definitely the petitioner has secured higher marks than the other respondents, in spite of the fact that they have already got admission. If it is taken into consideration, injustice and discrimination has been done to the petitioner. 7. But the question remains before me is that, when the petitioner did not apply through State quota, instead appeared in the open examination, can he claim for the State quota and now raise objection on the ground that he has secured higher marks than the other respondents and denied for admission. In my view the answer is that, since the petitioner did not apply through State quota now he cannot claim for State quota, therefore, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned selection list. 8. In my view the answer is that, since the petitioner did not apply through State quota now he cannot claim for State quota, therefore, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned selection list. 8. Before I part with the case record, I hereby observe that medical profession is highly an expertise profession where merit should be the only criteria. It is a fact that a person who secured 79% will be much better than a person who secured 68%. Moreover, those students who are admitted in the MBBS Course will be Doctors tomorrow and they will handle the life and death of the people, so definitely only meritorious students should be given preference. But since in this instant case, the State of Meghalaya has got its own quota, I am not in a position to grant any relief but to direct the NEIGRIHMS as well as the State Government to formulate a formula so that there should not be any much difference between those students who appeared for the open examination and those students who applied through the State quota but criteria should be only merit. Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, I am unable to interfere with this instant writ petition, hence, the matter stands disposed of.