/@// ¢ (9 C3 i—' 116% IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION Nofk‘kié. 2004 PETITIONER Ku Ruhl Anjum D/o Shrl Rashld Khan aged about 19 years Resident of Raja Talab Ralpur Dist. Raipur CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS. Whe State of C G through /” ‘Secretary Department of Health Fah'ly Welfare (including medical education) D K S Bhawan Mantralaya Ralpur (C G h director of Medical *‘ Education State of Chhattisgarh D K S Bhawan Mantralaya Maw” It / Raipur (C.G.) §$K%$’i: 3. The Dean Government Dental College, ’Near Science College/ GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Dean Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute Rajnandgaon, Dist.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA- FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN I Li NATURE OF CEERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERES: I ‘i 1 XI-HC 78 mmw Wwm 7,%_?na5 WW W®€R anifwm On a mamion bemg made, The mm‘mr is faker} up for hearing. 5%wi R. 3. Paml, comse! fc r "rha peTiTiomr. Sahri MK. Agrawai, Tha pe‘ri‘mmer has pairwio'nar m Denim! CGHegai Ra ccurxse§§mg '%he pe1‘i?§omr w fes?§mmia¥s regardmg ha“ aducar§om§ quaiificafion / Brkzf ‘fcxcfs iaaémg 1‘6 pa‘ri’rimar‘ appeared m ‘rhg Pram Xechsai T252”, 2 Pespwdam/Sfa“fa. Tiqe pefifimar cleared fhé wif‘n ragard 0 hm" ammsslch To ’m9 uema! Co.i€g~ {mo k¢5wrcm 12*} 1m mmuh 0‘ Augug? EGQ4 she TQM adm§53écm i‘ri fhe Damn} CoiS'ge am! §3 amh Imamue I“ The c3 i§sued ivy res’pm em No 2 ma a} ?%1e Dewfy i’wvocafe éemer‘ai far The EE'mm fresporwdeawfs 1 To 3 pm‘fe Fred 1%53 wr§T pefH‘Eow Lmder Arw‘icie 226;?27 9*? 4:!«1e Cmsfh‘u?ion of India baimg aggrieved by ”me acfion (33‘ respsndenT No.3 whéreby raggamdem N03 rufusad 4m aimi‘f Thg r an “(he gmwd fha? m” ’rhe ”rime of m? m posaewion of Tha origém! u :» {7a J g cf Thi£ wr§+ §z‘i‘ifiom am ”(hair Q04 cenducmd by we afwesaié RANT. fes'r ! : barim. C6Hege if: 1" vesgsmuw" No d m d iggu d cm 27 9 ?OG4 T ye’ 0 ¥ 3&5. cmrsa should approach fké :€$o . mi counse!%ng and we; semi m‘?ica was ‘ 3am W W Wmw42 we MLéQHm va&wn3$(i§im¥0 EHSTWU‘; av Ra.1imnd arm. meaamhna, an adver‘rusemem w candida'res who are dwirous mxd q Had ’3.” sum adml‘ on a‘o 'The 5. ‘ Em was msa ‘ro ?‘m2 said acvrar‘?isem2nf f‘mz' ‘ u m n é m Wi‘wr “m m3? EW‘W g mmafiz’awm .0?” 1 pefifioner purchased fhe pm specfus fmm respondan‘f N03 and ‘fhe pg‘x‘i’rioner‘ appeared for couas‘almg before respmdem No.3. However, om ”(he dafe of counseling rasponden? No3 asked fhe pefifioner w prac‘uce w%giml msfimoniak mWmmiBiW‘m %; 93W? sném i‘o which ‘fhe pe’rh‘ioner repEed ThaT her origim! ’a'es’dmmMS have beam deposited wifh reeponden‘r N04 where .LIme pe‘ri’rim‘er’ has already Takew admissien {md cer‘?ificm‘e fa “fha? effec‘f (Anhexure—P/3) was aso shown +0 resporwdem‘ No3, bm‘ ever? .tJmen respondee? No.3 refusec ’s‘o admif fhe pefifimer as The pen‘ifianer on The dafe of coumeiimg was Hal able To produce original Tesrlimonials. I have heard learned co Learnecl counsel for *ilie pefi‘i‘ioner submiffed Thm‘ as original reslimoriials were wiih respordemf No.4 and cer‘lifico‘re f0 The? effecf was also produced by “l'he pelifioner, iri llml' simo‘lion respoadenl No.3 oughi‘ ro lmve allowed reaso imsel for ’l‘he porfies. 1able i'ime To 'a‘he peli’i‘ioner To produce ll’iol cerlifica‘ie, burl io do aroi‘lrary manoer responder}? No.3 refused lo od‘mi‘r l‘he pe’i‘i‘lioner. On lhe o‘l’ner liaiqd, 5h @e'oerol submii‘red The? in Tl' condil‘ion Thai 'lhe candida’re was required lo produce candidal'e was enri‘l‘led for at r is lJaw; Li f: kn W A?» worms” round "i MK. Aorawal, learned Depu‘l‘y’ Advocoi‘e e firs? insfance if was fhe preurequisi‘re seeking admission in The Denial College original ‘‘iesfimo'niols wi‘i‘houi‘ which no lmission. He fur‘fher submi'f’red fhaf i‘he lillvn ilieu r} ‘I uy in; ' Pail}. *l GL “Rl——FS/350 12/200&i50,000. ow mesa, more Worm? WE 2oo mo “so? 51W?) va XI-HC—78 wwwrq‘; mmm Wm W ZQO am: qam (Wm mm‘afgam vyg 0f ia‘fches adso ’bacausa 2§+h September 2004 wheres 9-11-2004 and by Tha‘r Time a md as get" fhe decision of H‘ $Am§hu 5§5§h mid session admis In my opimon, fhis p9: grourld of'h‘fc'nas oh‘y for f'ne 29*?" samember 2004 and cc§mis3ion§ wzra comgijefrz, #hcr? am? by Flow claws? g‘ti§onfhs fherefwe' mid session admis5 Sfmgh’s mSa. En Ami}, maqi‘h ‘rhe gef accordiagiy dismi35ed. Cos‘f is garva fha s, Jrha peti‘i’éoner filed ’rhis pefifion on 1 Js'ha admis3ions were dread)! compk’rz m' k 5uprama Cour? m fhe mafHer of :sicms avg no? permissibie. rifion is “awe ’m be d§smi$sgd cm #hg reason Thai“ comseiing was com‘uc+ed m1 this pa‘HTion was fEled affer‘ all 1‘he "3'00 m‘Tar abam‘ we mam‘h and fen days have ajapsed simg bggmn‘mg of coursa, §on L§s m1- pgrmiasibie §n Wew of Madhu mw §$ Habie w‘o be. c§§5misseti am 31‘ 35: made easy. /;’#k"’.4#fi,1._‘#, Sdl- L.c.BHADOO canducfed an Judge WW WW¥§R $§fdum coumseiing was