Allowed

Dr. Abhishek Dadhich v. Up/Pg Ayush Counseling Board

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2021CW/9615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur directed the Ayush Counseling Board to allot the petitioner a stray vacant seat in the PG Ayurveda course for the 2020-21 academic session, deeming keeping it vacant a wastage of resources.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Counselling Board to allot a college/University to the petitioner against the Stray vacant seat for academic Session 2020-21.

Dr. Abhishek Dadhich Vs Up/Pg Ayush Counseling… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9615/2021

¶3

Dr. Abhishek Dadhich S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 37 Years, R/o C-30, Rajiv Nagar, Outside 3^rd Pole Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board, 112-113, Administrative Block, Dr. Sarvapalli Radha Krishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan Through Its Chairman.

¶7

University College Of Ayurveda, Dr. Sarvapalli Radha Krishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan Through Its Principal.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nihar Jain Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

17/11/2021

¶13

The petitioner having appeared in All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) for academic Session 2020-21, aspiring to get admission in PG course of Ayurveda.

¶14

The respondent Coordinator conducted two rounds of counselling and thereafter a mop up round on 23.02.2021.

¶15

Whereafter stray vacancy round was held in which the petitioner was present before the concerned Board, however, he was not given admission in spite of the fact that one seat was lying vacant.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-9615/2021]

¶18

The petitioner earlier approached this court by way of filing writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6862/2021, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2021 with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

¶19

Petitioner’s aforesaid representation has been rejected by the Counselling Board vide order dated 12.07.2021, inter-alia, indicating that the seat which remained vacant was earmarked for OBC (in-service) candidate, whereas the petitioner hails from open/General category.

¶20

Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that indisputably, one seat is lying vacant and keeping it vacant will not only take away candidates’ right, but also restrict the resource of the University. He submitted that in case the petitioner, who is passionate to do the course and is otherwise higher in merit (out of the available candidates for stray round) is given admission, it would be beneficial to all concerned.

¶21

Mr. Nihar Jain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Board submitted that the said seat was offered to an OBC candidate, who after admission did not turn up, but however did not dispute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner is accorded admission in Ayurveda PG course. Keeping the seat vacant serves nobody’s cause – it is a wastage of resources.

¶23

The respondent – Counselling Board is therefore directed to allot appropriate college/University to the petitioner for pursuing

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-9615/2021]

¶26

his PG course against Stray vacant seat for academic Session 2020-21.

¶27

Needless to observe that the fact that the petitioner is being given admission by this Court at a later point of time, will not create any equity in his favour and the petitioner will be required to fulfill requisite attendance criteria of the respondent-University for being eligible to appear in the examinations. The petitioner shall obviously be required to pay applicable fee and charges. 11. Writ petition so also stay petition stand disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶29

132-Ramesh/-

Dr. Abhishek Dadhich v. Up/Pg Ayush Counseling Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Abhishek Dadhich v. Up/Pg Ayush Counseling Board

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

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagat Siangh Shikshan Avum Jankalyan Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Megha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nenu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan