AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to fill the vacant seat for M.D.S. Course in
Mahatma Gandhi Dental College & Hospital, Government of Pondicherry, within this academic year which ends on 28.4.2005.
According to the petitioner, she had completed her graduation in Dentistry in the year 2002 and qualified herself in the B.D.S. Course in flying
colours. She applied for M.D.S. Entrance examination in the Pondicherry General Quota (P.G.Q.). The total number of seats in the Mahathma
Gandhi Dental College & Hospital in M.D.S. is six. Out of these six seats, two seats are allotted for All India Institute of Post Graduate Courses
(A.I.P.G.), New Delhi and the remaining four seats are allotted to students from Pondicherry. She wrote the entrance examination and secured
good marks and after allotment of seats, she stood as wait list candidate No. 1.
The petitioner submits that one Ms. Archana, Roll No. 4141993, had joined the Mahathma Gandhi Dental College & Hospital, Pondicherry,
under A.I.P.G. quota. Thereafter, she had obtained a seat in the State of Tamil Nadu and hence, she discontinued the M.D.S. Course at the
second respondent college. She had given a letter of withdrawal through her father to that effect to the Principal of the Mahatma Gandhi Dental
College & Hospital on 28.5.2004. However, since the Principal insisted for her personal handing over of the said letter, she visited the college on
31st May 2004 and handed over the letter of withdrawal. The same was accepted by the Principal. Immediately on coming to know of the same,
petitioner approached the Principal and requested him to provide her the vacant seat which fell due to the withdrawal of Ms. Archana. She also
gave a written request. She also pointed out that in terms of her prospects, the vacant seat should be allotted to her, she being the first candidate in
the waiting list and as she was entitled for admission in the M.D.S. Course, she insisted on her admission. But the second respondent informed her
that since the vacant seat fell under A.I.P.G. quota and that since the Supreme Court had ordered that all the seats should be filled up on or before
31.5.2004, he cannot provide the vacant seat. However, he promised the petitioner that he would refer the matter to the Director General of
Health Services, New Delhi. The petitioner awaited for response from the Principal and had, in fact, sent a representation to the fourth respondent
on 29.6.2004. A reminder was also sent thereafter.
Subsequently, herself and her parents were continuously and constantly approaching the Principal. However, every time they were given the
answer that the fourth respondent had not replied to the second respondent. Hence, the above writ petition.
Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, after referring to the facts as stated above, contends that as per the
prospects, when a seat under A.I.P.G. quota fells vacant, it will be handed over back to the concerned State Government and the State
Government may fill up the seat under their quota. It therefore became the responsibility of the first respondent to fill up the said seat as per the
prospects. Learned senior counsel referred to Clause 7(1) of the prospectus. Learned senior counsel further contends that post graduate
qualification is a must for practice and there being limited number of seats and though the petitioner was entitled to have been selected under the
vacant seat, she has been subjected to injustice due to unnecessary delay. Learned senior counsel refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
DOLLY CHHANDA v. CHAIRMAN, JEE (2004) 4 MLJ 111 (S.C.) in support of his contention that if the default in admitting the student within
the specified period is due to the respondent/ authorities, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief.
After expressing my opinion to the learned senior counsel that admission into the academic year 2004-2005 was totally impossible considering
that the writ petition itself had been filed only on 23.3.2005, I had directed the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) on 29.3.2005 to take
notice and to find out whether the petitioner could be accommodated in the academic year 2005-2006. Adjournment was sought for on three or
four occasions, namely on 12.4.2005, 18.4.2005, 19.4.2005 and 25.4.2005. Ultimately, this Court was informed that the seats in the said quota
has already been filled up by three candidates on 13.4.2005, 8.4.2005 and 13.4.2005 and consequently, there was no vacancy available for the
year 2005-2006.
In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that it was rather unfortunate that the respondents should take a stand as above in
spite of the fact that notice was taken by the Government Pleader on 29.3.2005 itself, and after several adjournments, it is now reported that there
is no vacancy for the year 2005-2006.
I have considered the submissions of both sides.
Having regard to Clause No. 7(1) of the proceedings and also the admitted factual position that the petitioner was retained as No. 1 in the
waiting list, there is no controversy over the fact that the petitioner should have been accommodated in the vacancy caused by Ms. Archana. There
is no justification for the respondents not to have accommodated her as against the vacancy caused by the surrender of the seat by Ms. Archana. It
is true that the Supreme Court had observed that seats should be filled up on or before 31st May 2004. The said direction cannot be applied
blindly in a case of this type where a vacancy has arisen as a result of the surrendering of the seat by one of the selected candidates. The direction
of the Supreme Court was in general context, namely, to avoid selection and filling up of seats during each academic year which had become a
regular practice and to ensure admissions did not extend beyond 31st May of each year, in order to avoid unnecessary delay in finalising the
selection list. The said observation cannot be taken as an embargo for the institution to deny admission to the petitioner herein in the background of
the facts stated above.
It is needless to mention that as far as post graduate medical education is concerned, in the present atmosphere, post graduate qualification is a
must and no Doctor can practice with a mere under graduate degree. It is also a well known fact that the number of seats in post graduate courses
are very minimal, in proportion to the number of seats in the under graduate degree. That being so, the authorities cannot, by their own default,
allow the seat to go waste by not having acted promptly on the surrendering of seat by Ms. Archana. The facts stated in the affidavit clearly
disclose that the vacant seat became apparent on 31.5.2004 itself and since then, the petitioner, along with her father, has been struggling to be
admitted as against the surrendered vacancy. However, the respondents have chosen to adopt a very mechanical attitude and with the result,
allowing the seat to go waste.
Even so, considering that the writ petition has been filed at the fag end of the academic year 2004-2005, I had made it clear that the petitioner
would not be entitled to the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, namely, to be admitted for the Academic Year 2004-2005, on the very first
date when the writ petition was taken up, namely, on 29.3.2005. I had directed the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) to find out the
vacancy position for the academic year 2005-2006. However, after few adjournments, now, the Court is informed that even the vacancies for the
year 2005-2006 have been filled up. One seat is said to have been filed up on 8.4.2005 and two other seats are said to have been filled up on
13.4.2005.
The attitude which is adopted by the respondents with reference to the claims of the petitioner cannot at all be appreciated.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DOLLY CHHANDA v. CHAIRMAN,
JEE (2004) 4 MLJ 111 (S.C.) cited above. In that case, on facts, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that denial of permission to the
candidate was due to default on the part of the respondents themselves who had adopted a highly technical and rigid attitude and the candidate
could not be blamed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the candidate to be admitted in the M.B.B.S. course in the current academic year
itself.
In spite of the above decision and also ignoring that denial of admission of the petitioner in the year 2004-2005 itself was only due to their own
default, the respondents have, however, taken an unsympathetic attitude even in respect of the suggestion for admitting the student for the
academic year 2005-2006. Such an attitude on the part of the Government Officials cannot at all be appreciated.
With the result, I am inclined to pass the following order:
(i) The petitioner shall be admitted in the M.D.S. course for the academic year 2005-2006 in the event of any vacancy falling within the said
academic year;
(ii) In the event of the petitioner not being provided with admission for the academic year 2005-2006, the petitioner shall be accommodated in the
academic year 2006-2007 without fail.
The writ petition is ordered subject to the above observation.