Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 306 (UTT)

Name Kuriyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-06-11

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The matter before this Court relates to admission in Post-Graduate Medical Course in Uttarakhand. The petitioner before this Court was earlier granted admission after the mop up round on the last date of admission when stray seats were to be filled by the medical colleges. Petitioner secured admission in MS Surgery at the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jollygrant, Dehradun. Thereafter further mop up round was done by the universities subsequent to the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Unaided Medical College where the Hon’ble Apex Court extended the last date of counselling till 31.5.2018 for all medical colleges in the country. In the last counselling, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the list of selected candidates and in place of the petitioner, the name of private respondent no. 7 was included in the list. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed today and on a mention made by the Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the records of the case were summoned and the Counsels for the parties have been heard at length. 3. Regarding the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates for MS Surgery and inclusion of the name of the private respondent no. 7, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. U.K. Uniyal, would actually argue that this is a fall out of an order given by this Court earlier in a matter also relating to Post Graduate Medical Courses in Uttarakhand which is Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1495 of 2018, Jitesh Talwar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, and another connected writ petition. The said order was passed on 29.5.2018 whereby it was directed by this Court that the counselling be done again on 30th and 31st May, 2018 calling applications from all eligible candidates as the Court was convinced that the one who had secured admission was less in merit to the ones who were denied admission. The said order was passed on 29.5.2018 whereby it was directed by this Court that the counselling be done again on 30th and 31st May, 2018 calling applications from all eligible candidates as the Court was convinced that the one who had secured admission was less in merit to the ones who were denied admission. Apparently, this has happened for the reasons that the concerned medical college, in that case Sri Guru Ram Rai Medical Institute of Health Science, Dehradun, had declared the seat vacant at the last moment on the last date of admission, on 18.5.2018, at 5 pm when no other candidate except the candidate who had actually secured admission was having the knowledge that such seat is going to be vacant! 4. Since an objection was raised at that time from the bar that this anomaly is happening in other medical colleges as well, this Court directed in paragraph 20 of the order dated 29.5.2018 as under:- “It is made clear that if such anomaly is committed by the other medical colleges as well, the State Counselling Board shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law so that right candidates are given admission.” 5. Admittedly, neither the present petitioner nor the concerned medical college where the petitioner had secured admission in MS Surgery was the party in the aforesaid writ petition, but pursuant to the direction of this Court the counselling which had to be done by the State Counselling Board i.e. HNB Uttarakhand Medical University asked for readmission as per the merit in all medical colleges in Uttarakhand. 6. In the State of Uttarakhand, there are four medical colleges, out of which two are State Medical Colleges and the remaining two are private medical colleges. These are as follows: (1) Government Medical College, Haldwani (State College) (2) Veer Chandra Garhwali Government Medical Science and Research (State College) (3) Himalayan Medical College, Jollygrant, Dehradun (Private College) (4) Sri Guru Ram Rai Medical Institute of Health Science, Dehradun (Private College) 7. We are presently concerned with Himalayan Medical College, Jollygrant, Dehradun where pursuant to the direction of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1495 of 2018, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled and admission was given to the respondent no. 7 who had applied and was admittedly higher in merit than the petitioner. This has been challenged by the petitioner. 7 who had applied and was admittedly higher in merit than the petitioner. This has been challenged by the petitioner. The main ground of challenge is that only such candidates could have applied for counselling who have participated in the mop up round or in the subsequent rounds including the mop up round held on 30th and 31st May, 2018 and who were registered in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. In order to support his case, the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by this Court in the case of Aabid Shafi Wani & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others (WPMS No. 1279/2018) where this Court while passing an interim order on 8.5.2018 has observed that in the second round of counselling, fresh registration should not be allowed. But that was in the case of second round of counselling, which for some reasons had to continue again and since there was a schedule already fixed by the Medical Council of India, only such candidates could have participated in the second round of counselling who were registered. However, for the mop up round and the subsequent rounds, there is no such mandatory requirement of pre-registration. Anyone can appear for the mop up round and get registered. Therefore, contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. U.K. Uniyal that one who has been granted admission was not registered is without any merit. 9. Second ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted admission on 18.5.2018 which was the last date of admission and thereafter the new counselling was done on 30th and 31st May, 2018 about which he was not aware and now he has been kept out of the list. The net result is that now the petitioner is not in a position to apply anywhere else. Had the petitioner known that another round of counselling is going to take place on 30th and 31st May, 2018, he would have applied elsewhere as well. 10. This may be true, but the fact remains that the deletion of the name of the petitioner and inclusion of the name of respondent no. 7 is the fall out of the interim order dated 29.5.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1495 of 2018, Jitesh Talwar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others and another connected writ petition. 7 is the fall out of the interim order dated 29.5.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1495 of 2018, Jitesh Talwar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others and another connected writ petition. This order was challenged at the hands of the affected students in special appeals which were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.5.2018 and thereafter they also approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing SLPs which were also dismissed on 7.6.2018. In the SLP, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order(s). The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 11. However, since the petitioner’s name had already been deleted by that time, he also approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and his SLP was dismissed as withdrawn and the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is as follows: “SLP(C) Diary No. 21514 of 2018: The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Since it is stated at Bar that the petitioner was not a party before the High Court, if it is so, the petitioner is at liberty to move the High Court in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not examined the merits of the case.” 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. U.K. Uniyal would therefore argue that the petitioner was not a party before the High Court, a fact which has also been observed by the Apex Court and it has also been clearly stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that his case has not been examined on merit and therefore the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the High Court. 13. Heard learned Counsels for the parties at length. 14. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has secured admission on a seat which was never properly advertised by the medical college. Admittedly, it became vacant only on 18.5.2018 which was the last date of counselling, that too at 5 pm. 13. Heard learned Counsels for the parties at length. 14. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has secured admission on a seat which was never properly advertised by the medical college. Admittedly, it became vacant only on 18.5.2018 which was the last date of counselling, that too at 5 pm. In order to check this malpractice, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust and Others v. Medical Council of India and others (Writ Petition (C) No. 267 of 2017) has directed as under: “After the second round of counselling for All India Quota seats, the students who take admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed/permitted to vacate the seats. This would ensure that very few seats are reverted to the State Quota and also All India Quota seats are filled by students from the all India merit list only. The students who take admission and secure admission in Deemed Universities pursuant to the second round of counselling conducted by the DGHS shall not be eligible to participate in any other counselling.” 15. There are Government of India directions as well which read as under: “Please find herewith the attached list of the candidates holding the PG course (MD/MS and MDS) seat in round – 1 and round – 2 of All India Quota/Deemed University through online PG Counselling – 2018. As per the directions laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (c) 267/2017 in the case of Dar-Us-Salam and Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and Ors. such candidates further are not eligible to vacate the allotted seat after round -2 of the online PG counselling of All India Quota and Deemed Universities. Moreover, all these candidates are not been eligible for participation in any other counselling to be conducted by State govts./counselling authorities. In this regard, you are hereby requested to please comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to avoid any further legal complications/contempt of the court.” 16. In view of the above, when eligible candidates who are higher in merit than the petitioner were never in the knowledge that a seat of MS Surgery is going to become vacant and available for admission at 5 pm on 18.5.2018, there was no occasion for them to be present at the time of counselling to get admission on the said seat. Therefore, it is a case where such seats were never declared as vacant. Nothing further needs to be said on this except that this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. 17. Registry is directed to supply the certified copy of this order to learned Counsel for the parties today itself on their expenses.