Poonam Jakhar and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Private respondents are, undisputedly, more meritorious than the appellants. When the counseling for private respondents was held, it was indicated to them that seats in certain specialties are available. Private respondents, accordingly, exercised their choice. They were admitted. Thereafter, it was held out that some more seats are available in respect of some other specialties. Appellants, who secured less marks than the private respondents, were then invited for counseling. They opted for the courses those were offered to them. Subsequent thereto, private respondents came to learn that the appellants, who secured less marks than them in the selection process, have been permitted to opt for those courses, which are more desirable. They came to the Court by filing a writ petition contending that, when option was given to them, they were not permitted to opt for those courses, which were permitted to be opted by the appellants and that is what is not permissible. The Court has held in favour of the private respondents. The fact remains that when a person has secured better marks, he must be given the widest of the choice. If that is denied to him, that is the denial of natural justice to him, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. It is, however, desirable that the first option for all the subjects shall be given to the first and the second option shall be given to the person who secured the second berth in the selection list and, thus, the matter must reach to the 33rd person who can have option of the 33rd available course. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.