Dismissed

Arpit Bansal and 22 Others v. Union of India and 7 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2019WRIC/15248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner students admitted to a private medical college sought a writ directing the Government of India to shift them to a recognized government college due to infrastructural and MCI compliance issues. The court held that without a fixed government or MCI policy on such transfers and given admitted capacity constraints, the relief was not granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing shift to government college or increase in sanctioned seats dismissed; interim order vacated.

Arpit Bansal and 22 Others Vs Union of India and… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15248 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Arpit Bansal And 22 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Prasant Singh,Avanish Mishra,C.S.C., Saif Mohd. Fazal

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Saif Mohd. Fazal, Advocate for University.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by 23 petitioners who were students of MBBS Course (Second Year) in local Medical College, Saharanpur. It is alleged that aforesaid College lacks infrastructural requirements and has also failed to satisfy requirement of Medical Council of India, therefore, a mandamus be issued to respondents to shift petitioners from aforesaid College to any recognized Government College after adjusting their fee and take necessary examination.

¶7

When questioned, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that on own merits of petitioners they could not get admission in any Government College and thus given admission in private Medical College, i.e., Resondent-8.

¶8

Besides, every Medical College, whether private or Government, has specified number of seats sanctioned by Medical Council of India. If seats are already allotted and admissions completed, there is no provision under which any direction can be issued to increase sanctioned seats in respective medical colleges so as to give admission to the students of another College by transfer. Learned counsel for petitioners could not show any provision so as to adjust petitioners in any other Medical College beyond sanctioned strength.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners drew our attention to para 8 of counter affidavit filed behalf of Respondent-5, which reads as under:

¶10

“ 8. That the reply of the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition are that there is no fixed criteria/ policy of the Government of India and as well as MCI regarding the transfer of the students to one

¶11

college to another college. It is relevant to state here that in view of the representation of the petitioners answering respondent by letters dated 07.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 has made request to department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and MCI to issue some guide lines regarding such facts and circumstances which is involved in the present writ petition. A true copy of the letter 07.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as a Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit.”

¶12

In view of what is stated by Respondent-5 above, if petitioners so desire, they may approach respondent-Competent Authority for redressal of their grievance but relief as prayed for cannot be granted by this Court in view of discussion made above.

¶13

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 24.9.2019 AK

Arpit Bansal and 22 Others v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Bansal and 22 Others v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rana Steels Limited Vs U.P. Power Corporation and Others

Kusum Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chandra Prakash Maheshwari and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Netra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Uvesh Chicken Centre Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others