Dismissed

Dr Chandra Prakash Sharma v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2015CW/8928/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed six writ petitions challenging the State Quota PG medical course counselling schedule and unfilled seats. The Court held the grievance hypothetical as all unfilled All India quota seats were utilized by the respondents for State Quota counselling, and subsequent vacancies could not be filled beyond the Supreme Court's deadline.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; Petitioners' grievances dismissed as no seats remained vacant after the third round of counselling.

Dr Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs State Education… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10017/2015

¶6

Dr Aditi Jain versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶7

2.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8315/2015

¶8

Dr Guman Singh Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶9

3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9584/2015

¶10

Dr Prachi Gupta & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶11

4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8326/2015

¶12

Dr Vishnukant Sharma & ors versus RUHS & anr

¶13

5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8542/2015

¶14

Dr Jitendra Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶15

6.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8928/2015

¶16

Dr Chandra Prakash Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶17

18.8.2015

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶19

Mr Aslam Khan Mr NK Singhal Mr Manish Parihar for Tanveer Ahmed Mr SK Singodiya – for petitioner/s

¶20

Mr Sanjeev Singhal, Dy GC – for respondents

¶21

BY THE COURT:

¶22

This bunch of writ petitions raises common question

¶23

of law and fact thus were heard and decided together by this common order.

¶24

¶25

The grievance of the petitioners is regarding admission in Post Graduate medical course. It is stated that after first and second round of counselling, third round of counselling was announced. As per the schedule given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it should have been conducted between 31.5.2015 to 4.6.2015, whereas, respondents conducted third round of counselling from 6.6.2015 to 8.6.2015. The petitioners also applied and participated in the third round of counselling but due to inaction on the part of the respondents to include unfilled seats of All India quota till 10.6.2015, certain seats remained unfilled thus not been offered to the petitioners. The respondents counted vacant seats till 6.6.2015 and counselling was conducted accordingly. Any candidate left the seat after admission in All India quota after 6.6.2015, was not counted while filling the State Quota, thereby, various seats remained vacant. If those seats would have been offered, petitioners could have opted for speciality of their choice. In view of above and now also that seats are lying vacant for PG medical course, respondents may be directed to take options for change of speciality.

¶26

Mr Sanjeev Singhal, learned Dy Government Counsel, submits that counselling was rescheduled from 31.5.2015 to 4.6.2015 due to bona fide reasons mentioned in the reply to the

¶27

¶28

writ petitions. The petitioners did not raise any objection on rescheduling. The respondents counted all unfilled seats of All India quota to be filled in the State Quota till the date of the counselling. As a result of which, all the seats were filled in third round of counselling. The petitioners participated in third round of counselling and opted for the seat and have been given admission. There is no provision to conduct fourth round of counselling to give chance for any seat remained unfilled if some candidates left the seat after admission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court does not permit filling of the seats after the last date meant for it. In the present case, 10.6.2015 was the last date to admit the students for PG course. Accordingly, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶29

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶30

The writ petitions have been filed apprehending that some seats of PG medical course remained unfilled as certain unfilled seats of All India quota have not been counted while holding counselling for the State Quota.

¶31

It has come that all the unfilled seats of PG medical

¶32

¶33

course were taken into account while holding third round of counselling and were filled by the respondents. No seat was lying vacant after conducting third round of counselling. Accordingly and in absence of any vacant seat, petitioners' grievance remains hypothetical. It may be that subsequent to filling the seats, certain candidates left the course after taking admission but such seats cannot be filled in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mridul Dhar (minor) & anr versus Union of India”, (2005) 2 SCC 65, wherein, it has been held that admission should not be given beyond the last date fixed by the Apex Court. If any seat remain vacant subsequent to it, this court should not issue direction for it.

¶34

Looking to the facts aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the writ petitions. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶35

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶36

bnsharma

¶37

All corrections made in judgment/ order been incorporated in judgment/ order being emailed.

¶38

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Dr Chandra Prakash Sharma v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Chandra Prakash Sharma v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anisha Chawla Vs Dr D P Puniya and Others

Kamal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sujan Singh Vs State

Dr Smt Savita Joshi andANR Vs State Education Departmentanr

Hamida Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pannilal Somi @ Susu Vs State