AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The point involved is whether there is any scope for interference with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, whereby the time sought for by the Appellant to furnish the requisite Bank Guarantee, so as to have secured admission to the MBBS course in the management quota has been turned down.
The sequence of events as narrated in the pleadings reveals that the Appellant/Petitioner was an aspirant for selection to the post of MBBS Course, 2010. Pursuant to the verdict passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in the relevant cases, selection was conducted to a limited extent, so as to fill up the vacant seats in the management quota. Accordingly, a notification was issued and the candidates participated in the examination. In respect of the 13 seats available under the 3rd Respondent, the select list was published, wherein the Petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 7. All the candidates were given intimation on 20.10.2010 instructing them to satisfy necessary fees, the security deposit, Bank Guarantee etc and the candidates were given admission accordingly. The case of the Appellant is that, immediately on getting intimation as to the selection, the requisite documents were submitted before the concerned Bank so as to obtain Bank Guarantee; whereupon, the Petitioner was informed by the Bank on 23.10.2010 that a minimum period of ''one week'' was necessary so as to provide the Bank guarantee, which in turn was intimated to the third Respondent seeking for a period of one week. This however was rejected by the third Respondent, who proceeded with further steps, which in turn was subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition.
After considering the facts and figures, the learned Single Judge observed that the ''cut off date'' was clearly prescribed by the Apex Court while considering the matter and selection had to be finalized on or before the said date. In the said circumstances, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed, which made the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Appeal.
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the third Respondent has filed a statement and an additional statement, as to the actual facts and figures. It has been explained that all the candidates similarly situated to the Appellant furnished the requisite Bank Guarantee and accordingly they were given admission; that no discrimination was there or no undue favor was extended to any of such candidates and that, only on failure of the Appellant/Petitioner, that the persons who stood next in the queue were given admission. The particulars of such candidates have been given in the said additional statement dated 15th November, 2010, also producing copies of the Bank Guarantee as Exts. R3 (6) to R3 (11).
Going through the materials on record, we find that no act of discrimination has been pursued by the Respondents in the matter of selection and no vested right of the writ Petitioner has been infringed, much less any fundamental rights .
None of the grounds raised in the Writ Appeal does serve its purpose. Interference is declined and the Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly.