^SlSi^^r^S.^ '^\ ^ < '. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU^E AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No.^7q/2005 PETITONER ^^ ^^ A^SJ^ ^.y'"Q^%y^ o^ ^:^^ •••'"^^>'-* ^\ .^'' ^ o^ ^^^.^ -^T^ ^ ^~~\«^ ^^ ^v> Harsh Jain Aged about 17 years S/o D.C. Jain, Minor through Natural Guardian Father D.C. Jain Aged about 45 years S/o Dhanraj Jain R/o M.I.G. 389, Padmanabhpur Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT u o> ^^^^—•—^^^ ,'/v^. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Director Medical Education Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur -2. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Through Vice-chancellor JBiLasBur_((l,G,l_ OF INDIA JFOR ISSUANCE OF APPRJFMI^jB WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS^AND DIRECTIONS: •;^ ^ l^. ArIC^l 1#... ,;''t:^^^A,^teW^^^^^^^BBa;;,.,,i:,.T - ,. ;-'. ^©w»eihi 4» ^fc*'•y^itiar £aI-»^^.M^@afe Wiiou^h ^eaiir JSo&feMiB (^.B»| XI-HC-78 ^ \5Tpc|<-<il<<lrt<4,»T¥l'H<l<B,Rlrtl^l^ ^irf^ ........^^.^M^il^^200 3TT^$T q^q? (^cli^clog) 31T^$T^TR^i4» nsff^n^^Tri^^icb ^Rnan^rf^cT 3n^5T cpi^fo^O^+ii+ioT^'l^^l ^Ri^ix ^arf^rw^^T 29.9.2005 Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advoc^ the petitioner. Shr? Sandeep Dubey, Goy1.\ Shri Amrito Das, Advocate| Miss Ssmta Jain, Advocate| Shri 5.L Adile- DirectoH Tiwari, Dfficer In-charge of the has also filed the affidavit in 28.9.2005. The petitioner has preferj action of respondent No.l dated petitioner has been refused in ^ Raipur (hereinafter referred to The case of the petitioner Test, which was held for admissiobs session 2005-06. In that test th© combined merit list and petltioner was admitted in th^ Sciences, Bitaspur (hereinafter seat. After the admission of th| from AII India Quota seats me<|int |xte with Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for Advocate for respondent Nos.l & 4. for respondent No.2. |for respondent No.3. 1 Medical Education <& Dr. Jitendra case are present in Court. Shri Adile p(ursucxnce of the Court's order dated oB [ed this writ petition challenging the 28.8,2005 whereby admission to the |t. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, ' Medical College, Raipur'). |s that he appeared in the Pre-Medical in M.B.B.S. cour^s to the academic petitioner secured 51 position in coun^lling, as per merit/ the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical rjeferred to as 'dAAS') against a free i|B petitioner in the CTMS, two ^ats for Medical College, Raipur were •the olfter XI-HC-78 ^vSf ^i«icl)<4,y^^^Ks, RlrtK-i^ HMwia^^TT^ 3IT^$T q^q? (^^fgcRf) ^200 3TT^CTWRii<p ?W3TT^$Tri»^icb o w ir S^RTTW^iRa OT^^T •^- sverted back to be filled up by t^| sats were not filled through CPMj lose seats to the Medical Colled stitioner was called by the responc) 2 held on 28.8.2005. However,vw^ >unsellin9 admission was refused t<| the ground that he has already b^en feainst a free seat. Further cal ^titioner secured 51 position in ti^ Indt'a Quota ^ats to the Medica| pmission in the Medical Coliege, |>mpetence of the respondents to ^at the petitioner has already been Return has already been file^ fiich ^3ime ground has been raised] ^en odmifted in the CIM.5. therefc|re, the Medicai College/Raipur. Mot|eover R|jies specifjcaltyprohibits the chou^ w|io has atready been admitted in ar^ I have heard the learned counl Learned Senior Advocate for lb.2 of Cbuse-5 of letl-er dated 22| <pi<i[o<n<i +ii+icoV^r(^l<si ^ivi^i^ ^3rf^T3IT^?T e Medical College, Raipur as those T examination. After reversion of e, Raipur vide Annexure P-3 the snts to appear in the counselling to en the petitioner appeared in the him in the Medical Col^e, Raipur granted admission in the CIMS !e of the petitioner is that the le merit list and after reversion of College, Raipur he was entitled for %aipur and it was not within the efuse the admission on the ground admitted in the CIMS. J on behalf of the respondents in that as the petitioner has already £, he is not entitled for admission ', Rule 7 of Pre-medical Test ge of medical college by a student f otiier medicol college. ^el for the parties. ^"he petitioner argued 1+iat in Note [8.2005 (Annexure P-3) it has been '/7) XI-HC-78 ^z.xl -r<yi^ic^<l, ^-alt-i^LCB, Rrti^^ »rf^na»*n<j» 3I1^$T q^P (licl^<sl<£;) WL200 3TT^$T^TR-ii<b WIT3TT^$T9RFP ?T?ITaR^Rd 3ff^^T _ <3>- caselhis Coll^ge made clear that those studentl dental/mediaxl college and in entitled to seek admission in a fee is charged and in view of this admission in Medical College, reverted back to the Medical Col| the petitioner being at Sr. No.51 for admission in the Medical been given admission, but 1+ie admission on the irreleyant and On the other hand, Nos.l & 4 argued that Rule 7 o<| Chikitsha Snatak Pravesh allotted college, course and seat changed and the candidate wil! after thecounselling. He furthe| dated 29.9.2005 filed by the Di| from All India Quota were revert^ oind one seat of the State quota letter of counselling was ^ent to list including the petitioner. H< admission on 1+ie ground that he l^aipi ih chl4fc6^nyl *1Hc6T^"t^^l ^RI^IX ^ari^Tsn^sT ^ who have taken admission in the aselhis tuition fee is more then he will be dei^tal/medical college where less tuition ;buse, the petitioner was entitled for ^aipur. Moreover, when seats were ^ge, Raipur from All India Quota and the combined merit list was entitled ;, Raipur as such, he ought to have respondents have refu^d to give no^-existent grounds. Advocate for respondent Chhattisgafh Chikitsha Tatha Dant Niyam. 2003 prescribes that |it the time of counselling shall not be required to deposit the whole fee ie^ argued that in view of the affidavit ihector, AAedical Education two seats back to the Medical College, Raipur jwas remained vacant that is why the axndidate according to the merit ^wever, the petitioner was refused h<^s already been admitted in the CIAAS learned ^overnment PariHsha XI-HC-78 vj-crl -^il^lri^, y^'{-l<l<o, Rlrtl'd^ *11*101 9»HI<P gn^?T q=ra? (^cil^ei.g) ^T^200 3IT^$T^TRT1 WIT3n^$T3CTPP ?^Trw^rf^T3n^^T position|that a9ainst a free seat. He further the Hon'ble Apex Court rende^d Union of India reported in A^ entitled for change of college. Haying heard learned courjsel record and also considered the j^ The limited question, whic|i is that whether the petitioner Medical College, Raipur t'nspite Gdmitted in CIAAS, Bilaspur. It is an admitted cour^s to the Medical Colleds, combined pre-medical test was Education, Raipur and thereaftej Out of that combined merit lisl Raipur we.re. filled ond thereaft filledfrom the remaining candid< the petitioner's position in that first 41 seats of unreserved ca1 admission in the Medicai Colle^e, granted admission against a free tater on out of 15% All India Qu< sel^for the parties/I have peru^d the |jdgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. requires consideration-by this Court, Iwas ©ntitledto seek admission in the ?f the fact that he has already been <bl^llc641^ ^l^rtT^'fe^ ^F»l^-cix •^ — ^ sri^iTsn^CT rgued that in view of the judgment of in Mridul Dhar and another V. ;R SCW 3239 the petitioner is not for giving admission^ in M.B.B.S. ^ Raipur as also CIMS, Bilaspur a ponducted by the Board of Secondary \ a combined merit iist was prepared. I, firstly 82 seats of Medical College, ^er, 82 seats of CIMS. Bilaspur were Ites of that combined merjt list and as fcombined merit list was not within the t|£gory, therefore, he couid not secure ^ Raipur. The petitioner has been seat in the CIMS, Bibspur. However, )fra seats two ^ats were reverted back XI-HC-78 Njx;r| •^Jt^ |ri4, ^TTl'{1< 1<», Rlrtl^^ *ll*l^l^1TT^ 3TI^$T^TRTli<b ^lTOT^^TaOTra? ^waw^^ 3n^?T^ftS (yi(^<si<s) ^200 ?^:ITWr^iRa W^^T to the Medical College, ftaipi remained vacant, therefore, Medical College, Raipur issu€|d newspapers as also issued indiv| the petitioner and in pursuance| the counselling. A combined brochure 1< Bilaspur inviting applications 1|r M.B.B.S. courses was issued Education, Raipur ynder the is^ Clause-7 at Page-16 of said br^ college, course and seat allotte<| changed in any circumstance deposit the whole fee after cou^ One of the grounds be| colJege is that if any candidate the college where that candi< required to fill up that seat by last date for admission, as per may be elapsed and ultimately In view of the above, wl CIM5, Bilaspur in 1tie first c< and one seat of State Quota aiso :or filling of 1+iese three seats the notice through publication in the dual letters to the candidates including of that the petitioner appeared before <bl^llc^41rl ^l^c!>T^f'fe^l ^^IK ^^rf^ran^^T abd for Medical College, Raipur & CIMS, [rom the ccyididates for admission in ^y Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary hstructions of the (Sovemment and in khure it has been mentioned that the at the time of counselling shall not be the candidate shall be required to ^iseiling is over. lind not permitting the change of {s aliowed to change the college then |ate was studying will be further counselling and in that process l4ie order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, ^at will remain un-filled. ^sn the petitioner got ddmission in the ^un^jling, as he was not entitled for tHat 7^ XI-HC-78 ^x.TJ^l^lrt^.ipT^'M^Kp/Rirti'd^ ^IIHrtl ^^TTq» 3TT^?T tRq? (^i^d^) ^F^200 W^^T^TRRPP Wll3n^$T»+ii<p STclT^R^Rd 3TT^^T .-^ admission in the Medical Colleg^/ of the considered opinion that the ^xid brochure the petitioner^ In paragraph-6 of Mridu<|il has held that; "The continued second c4i those, as per merit, who the MBBS Course in any the country, If a studer(t would be no question o'\ counselling again so as +4 view to get admission ir| students who.as a result taken admission in Der permitted to participate^ chance for admission in thl It has further been held that: ".. We make it clear thatl be permitted to chang^ admissions in Dental to change one Dental 4?l^frt^ ^HrtT^'fe^ <^-ci\ ^^Vf^T3IT^^T Raipur as per his merit position, I am view of the provisions of Clause-7 of was not entitled for change of coilege. Dhar's case the Hon'ble Apex Court |unselling would be confined to only have not already been admitted in the (Sovernment Medical College in has already been adrnitted there such a stLident being permitfed change the medical college with a some other medical college. The ^pf the counselling already held, have |tal Colleges would, however, be in the counseiling for gett-ing a i^ MBBS on the merit position." Ithose admitfed in MBBS would not g^ the college. Those who have taken |olle9e would also not be permitted C^llege to another Dentdl College..." XI-HC-78 \j-cT|«^ll'yiri^,tOTnlwi<o,T6irti-<i^'< *ii*w»wfn^ 3IT^9T q^R? (4c|^c|<ri) ^Ft200 31I^5T^TRTli€b Wff3IT^^Tri3+li<b f^~~rif\-. '^ E Roshan/ J ^ ''^; ^RTTW KiRa W^^T ab4ve -7- Therefore, in view of the Court also the petitioner was noj As far as the argument the petitioner that in letter^ petitioner calling for counsell|ng candidate, who is admitted in o| paying more fees, will be enti1|l dental/medical college where concerned, I am afraid that Director, Medical Services agaijis- above of the said brochure. including the Director, Medica| that conditions independently| substoince in the argument petitioner. In 1+ie result, the petiti<| dismissed and accordingly, it is <hl^fc641T1 ^IN^T^f(^l^t xfvt^-ci^ ^3rf^T3H^^T judgment of the Hon'ble Apex entitled to chonge the college. ^dyonced by learned Sr. Counse\ for dated 22.8.2005 issued to the jt has been mentioned that a dental/medical college where he is led to take admission in any other |ie is required to pdy less fee is iow this has been written by the ijist the spirit of Rule-7 referred in ^gainst Rule 7 none of 1+ie official services were entitled to chcxnge Therefore, I do not find any by learned Sr. Counsel for the advahced ^n of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge