^7 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WMTPETmONNo. 1757 of2003 Smt. Tanuja Sing^i, aged about 44 years, W/o Late Shri Par^snath Singh, occupation - Teacher, r/o Deviganj Ward, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department ofHealth and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawaxi, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Union of India, throu^i: Departaii^nt of Heatth and Family Welfare, New Delhi. 3. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Medical CoUege, fhrough Dean, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehm Medical College,Raipur(C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. AenUiotoi, J. Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Slm Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for flie State. ORALORDER (Passed on 1 lm day of November, 2008) 1. With the consent oftiie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition clamiing free education in the Medical College to her daughter Ku. Spriha Parmar. According to leamed ccwnsel for the petitioner, Ku. Spriha Parmar was admitted to M.B.B.8. oourse. There is no averment in fhe pleadings asto when she was admitted to M.B.B.8. course. Leamed counsel orally submits fhat she has completed M.B.B.S. course and has became a Doctor. 3. The petitioner is claiming fee exemption on the basis ofremarks printed on tfie Green Card wherein it is provided that holder ofGreen Card would be -2- ay ^ v^ 1^:^ / ^^-:^ ^ ^%^^r 6. entitled to fee exemption in medical/engineermg college. It is not clear osto whether fhis exemption is to fhe Green Card holder or to Ae children oftiie Green Card holder. It is also not clear asto whether the Green Card is granted to those people who have undergone some surgCTy under the family planning scheme, The daughter oftiie petitioner ha^s ah'eady completed h@r education. Shri Prajapati further submits that even in the legislative assembly, the concemed minister has informed to the members of the assembly tihat Green Card hotders are entitled to jfree medicaVengineering education. Shri Prajapati submits that on the basis of statement made m the legislative assembly as well as publication on the Green Card^ the dau^iter of the petitioner has become entitled to free education in the M.B.B.S. course. On query asto whether discussion in tfae legislative assembly as well ^s some remarks made in the Green Card entitles the petitioner to free medical education for the dau^iter oftihe petitioner. Shd Prajapati submits fhat this is a promise and once promise is made by the Govemment, it is not necessary to go into tiie source ofpromise. Accordingly^ sh@ is entitled to fee exemption. Per contra, Shri Shashank Thakur, leamed Panel Advocate appearing for Ihe state submits that these autonomous medical colleges are autfioris^d to fix their fee schedule without any fee exenaption. Even otiierwise, facilities provided on the Green Card does not confer any ri^it on the petitioner or the discussion in the legislative assembly does also not confer any right on the petitioner unless fhe same is proi^rly notified m accordanee with law. The petitioner's daughter has already completed her education, at tiiis - t^^ '-"4"^ '^;»\ g <.-• "^\ ^ -3- stage, the petitioner cannot claim any exemptidi without there being aay basis. The petitionerhas not acquired any right, thus, there is no question of infringement oflegal or any other right 7. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties, pemsed the pleadings a^id documents appended fhereto. It is evident that mentioning of certain facilities on the Green Card does not confer any right on fhe petitioner. Even discussion in fhe legislative assembly cannot be taken as an order passed by the govemment in accordance with law as there is no order or notification issued by the govemment which eiititles the petitioner te claim free medical education for her daughter. Even otherwise, fhe dau^rter of fhe petitioner has already completed the M.B.B.S. course. The petition is meritless. 8. Thus, this petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. 9. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1599/2003, also stands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Asmt