Dismissed

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2022WPC/3074/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 11(Ka) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatkottar Pravesh Niyam 2021 regarding PG admission preferences for local candidates. Having been admitted to PG courses, the court held it unnecessary to decide the rule's validity and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of with validity of Rule left open.

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 3074 of 2022

¶5

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi S/o Shri Vikas Tyagi, Aged About 25 Years R/o Pendra Road, Thana And Tahsil Gaurella, District : GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Dr. Anmol Patel, S/o Shri Banshi Ram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o At Post Hatlapali, Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Medical Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director, Medical Education, Purana Nurses Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Secretary, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department New Delhi

¶13

National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary General, Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110077

¶14

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Through Its Director, Tatiband, G.E. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioners	: Mr. Parag Kotecha and
	Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Advocates
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3	: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Addl. A.G.
For Respondent No. 4 & 6	: Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC
For Respondent No. 5	: Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate
For Intervenor	: Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶22

02.12.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned

¶24

¶25

Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 6, Mr. Venketesh Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenor.

¶26

The writ petition was filed praying for the following reliefs :

¶27

“I. to declare Rule 11(Ka) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatkottar Pravesh Niyam 2021 as violative and ultra vires to the provisions under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further please to direct the respondents state to amend the rules.

¶28

II. direct the respondents not to grant admission, in Post Graduate courses, to the students who Under Graduate from AIIMS under the State Quota Category.

¶29

III. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶30

English translation of Rule 11 (Ka) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatkottar Pravesh Niyam 2021, as furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reads as follows :

¶31

“11 Preference in admission :-

¶32

(a) The Candidates who have either completed their MBBS from a college in Chhattisgarh or are serving the mandatory period in Chhattisgarh would be preferred over other candidates under the State Quota for giving admission.”

¶33

¶34

The petitioners are aspirants for prosecuting Post Graduate courses and it is articulated that if the Rule is allowed to stand, it will jeopardize their chances of getting admission in Post Graduate courses in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶35

In the meantime, both the petitioners have been admitted to Post Graduate courses. While the petitioner No.1 was admitted in Lady Hardinge Medical College in the subject of Anesthesia, the petitioner No.2 was admitted in MD (Medicine) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science, Bilaspur.

¶36

In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to consider the validity of the Rule at the instance of the petitioners and the same is left open to be decided in a more appropriate case.

¶37

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/-

¶39

(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge

¶40

Chandra

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi v. the State of Chhattisgarh

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

Mr. Shamsher Singh Vs General Manager

Narbadia Bai Vs Manharan Srivas

Harishankar Joshi Vs Shri M.n. Rajulkar

U.N. Iyengar Vs Union of India

Dr. Aman Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh