AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to admit the Petitioner to MDS course m any one of the two existing vacancies in the third Respondent college with effect from the earlier academic year 1997-98 and allow the Petitioner to complete the course without any disturbance and also seeks to issue any other appropriate order or direction as the Court deems fit and proper.-
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the Petitioner completed BDS degree course in the year 1993 and thereafter applied for Post-graduate Course and she selected ''Oral Pathology'' for the year 1997-98. She scored 40.97% in the selection. By an order dated 22.4.1997 she was informed that she has been selected provisionally for admission for Oral Pathology course for the year 1997-98. The Petitioner was requested to report to the Head of the institution Tamilnadu Government Dental College, Chennai on or before 5.5.1997 which was complied with by the Petitioner. She was admitted in the college and she was undergoing the course for nearly a week. While so, on the basis of the non-speaking order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the second Respondent, it was informed to her that her provisional admission was withdrawn and she was requested to appear for recounselling on 12.5.1997. Though the order was vague and not speaking, she appeared for recounselling on 12.5.1997. It is stated that after recounselling, she was given a seat in Ragas Dental College, though she did not get any information from Ragas Denial College. It is stated that Ragas Dental College did not inform the Petitioner only because of the fight between the private dental college and Government dental colleges with regard to the allocation of seats. The Petitioner informed the difficulties which she had to undergo and she also gave a representation dated 26.7.1997 to the second Respondent for which she has not received any reply. She also sent a reminder dated 10.5.1998 for which also she did not receive any reply. It is under the above circumstances, she has come to this Court seeking for the relief as stated above.
Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit and the same is sworn to by the Secretary of the Selection Committee. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 9.4.1997 the Petitioner sought for attending a counselling and since her rank in the entrance examination was 44 and when better meritorious candidates were available she was not selected. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Government sanctioned 18 additional seats. The Petitioner was also directed to appear for counselling on 22.5.1997. In that ''counselling the Petitioner was selected to MDS course for Oral Pathology and was allotted to Government Dental College, Chennai. The candidates who were admitted to the 14 seats made a representation to the Government that in view of the increase in the seats, the chances of opting for a particular discipline has also increased and therefore, the entire selection process must be done over-again.
The Government considered the representation with all its seriousness and found that the entire selection process was defective since the selected candidates were not given an opportunity to choose then subject or discipline. Hence, the entire selection was set aside and recounselling was ordered for all the 32 seats. Recounselling was conducted on 12.5.1997 and the Petitioner who was in the 44th rank did not find a place in that selection. She was waitlisted for Conservative Dentistry Discipline and she was No. 2 in the waiting list in the said discipline. The Petitioner also opted for the payment seat at Ragas Dental College. Chennai, subject to the allotment of 50% seats by the Government. The payment procedure is challenged by Ragas Dental College before this Court in W.A. No. 452 of 1997. It is for the above reasons the Petitioner could not be selected. -
After having heard both the sides. I feel that no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order.
One of the main reasons for rejecting the contentions of the writ Petitioner is that there is a long delay in filing this writ petition. The Petitioner seeks admission for the academic year 1997-98. The relief sought for by the Petitioner is issuance of writ of mandamus to admit the Petitioner in the third Respondent''s college with effect from the earlier academic year 1997- 98 and allow her to complete the course.
By her own admission; it is clear that she wanted to get admission for the academic year 1997-98. By the time, this writ petition is filed, that academic year was mostly over. Permitting a candidate to attend the course at the fag end of the course is not proper and the practice is deprecated by the Supreme Court in its various decisions.
That apart, even on merits, the Petitioner has no case. It is true that the Petitioner was selected when the number of seats was increased from 14 to 32. The counselling was made only for 18 candidates who were not subjected to counselling earlier and got selected. The entire selection for 32 seats was re-examined and cancelled and a fresh selection was made. The writ Petitioner has not challenged the cancellation of the earlier cancellation. It is not a cancellation of the selection of the Petitioner alone. The entire process of selection was cancelled since it was found to be defective. The rank of the Petitioner was only 44 and better meritorious candidates were also to be admitted. Moreover, even though the selection was made in May, 1997 for the entire 32 seats, the writ Petitioner filed this petition only in May, 1998 nearly after a year.
The lapses on the part of the Petitioner only shows that she herself realised that the earlier selection process was not correct and the selection made on 12.5.1997 has rectified the defects in the earlier selection process.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even now two seats are available with the third Respondent''s college and the Petitioner could be accommodated in liny one of the seats. I do not think that such a submission could also be accepted. The learned Government Pleader appearing for Selection Committee''s Trust also submitted that this contention is not correct. There is only one seat in the waiting list and the same has been filled by the orders of this Court in another writ petition and there is no vacancy at present, as contended.
Even otherwise, I do not think that the Petitioner could be heard on that point. If there is a vacancy, it cannot be earmarked for the Petitioner. Merely because the Petitioner alone came to Court, she will not be entitled to get admission for that seat. The authorities will have to take into consideration the other meritorious students too. Only if there are no better meritorious students, she can seek for equitable remedy for getting admitted in that vacancy. The Petitioner has no case that there are no meritorious candidates than her.
Therefore, In view of the above observations, I dot not find merits in this writ petition and consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.