Disposed

Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2020WPMS/989/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, admitted to a Govt. Medical College in Gujarat via All India NEET PG counselling, challenged the 'clinical courses only' limitation on his existing NOC from Respondent No. 2, seeking admission in non-clinical courses to join the allotted college by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to rationally consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2020 and take a decision expeditiously.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 989 of 2020

¶2

Ajay Kumar …Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents

¶3

Advocate: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel along with Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶5

(Via Video Conferencing)

¶6

All India NEET PG-2020 Examination, was conducted by the National Board of Examination and the petitioner who had completed his MBBS in 2017 from Govt. Medical College, Haldwani, had participated in the said Examination. Petitioner qualified the same after having obtained marks of 508, out of 1200 marks and in the result thus declared, he was ranked at 42667 in All India Ranking.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the instructions received from the petitioner submits that the cut off provided for joining the Medical College at Baroda, Gujarat by 30.06.2020, would not create a bar for the reason that the petitioner had already joined subject to the condition of furnishing the NOC to be granted by respondent No. 2.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purposes of participation in the counselling, petitioner had applied for an NOC, to be granted by respondent No. 2, and his case is that he has been granted with the NOC by respondent No. 2 on 21.04.2020; but that NOC was limited for his participation in counselling for clinical courses only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of All India Counselling, which was conducted, the petitioner had been granted admission and allotted a Govt. Medical College at Baroda, Gujarat; but the allocation which has been made therein on the basis of Second All India Counselling, he has been incapacitated to join the said Medical

¶9

¶10

College, on the ground that the NOC already granted to him on 21.04.2020, was limited for his participation in counselling to the clinical course only.

¶11

By virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the relief to the effect that the condition in the NOC as granted to him on 21.04.2020, may be directed to be modified by respondent No. 2 by extending its ambit of consideration limited to the clinical courses only, also for para and non clinical PG courses.

¶12

The urgency in the matter as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is from the view point that since on the conclusion of the second round of counselling, he had to join the allotted Institution in Gujarat prior to 30.06.2020 and in case if the NOC granted to him by respondent No. 2 on 21.04.2020, is not appropriately modified, he would be deprived of his admission in the allotted Medical College at Gujarat, as a consequence of second round of counselling on All India basis and his academic career would be ruined.

¶13

The ratio though happens to be identical as engaged consideration in the bunch of matters, which are pending consideration which relate to second round of counselling for the State level counselling in NEET PG, but considering the present case, since the admission of the petitioner on All India basis counselling is at stake, this writ petition is being disposed, at this stage itself after hearing the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to respondent No. 2 to rationally consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.06.2020, expeditiously, and take a decision on the same, considering the principles, as it has been laid down in various interim orders passed by this Court in relation to the State PG courses.

¶14

¶15

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Accordingly, the Interim Relief Application (CLMA No. 4333/2020) stands disposed of.

¶16

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself, as per rule.

¶17

Mahinder/

Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suresh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Sumit Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sonu Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand