CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15458 of 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 02, 2010 Manbir Kaur (Minor) through her father, Resham Chand Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sudarshan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. N. D. S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. S. S. Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner prays for quashing the admission of Sumit Mahajan (respondent No.4), student of M.B.B.S. Ist Year at Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Barnala Road, Bhatinda, he being less meritorious than the petitioner and was admitted ignoring the claim of the petitioner. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15458 of 2009 :{ 2 }: The petitioner passed her 10+1 and 10+2 examination from Guru Nanak Public School, Ludhiana as a regular student. Thereafter, she appeared in the entrance test of P.M.E.T. 2009 conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as “University”). The Government had authorised the University to conduct the entrance examination for selection of candidates for admission to M.B.B.S., B.D.S., B.A.M.S., B.H.M.S. Courses in the Institutions in the State of Punjab for the year 2008 onwards. Prospectus for P.M.E.T. 2009 entrance test was accordingly issued by the University. No Institution in the State could select the candidates out of any other source or in any manner other then inter-se merit of the candidates in the P.M.E.T. test, which was to be so held. The petitioner appeared in the test held on 14.6.2009 under Roll No.574996 and secured 520 marks, her rank being 635. The petitioner accordingly submitted her form to the University before 26.6.2009. The counselling for the admission was held on 10.7.2009 to 12.7.2009 for M.B.B.S. Course. The last candidate admitted on 12.7.2009 had secured 532 marks and was granted admission. Second counselling was conducted on 27.8.2009. Candidate with 528 marks appearing at Sr.No.554 was given admission in the private Institution under the management quota seat. After second counselling, seat in M.B.B.S. Course was left only in Adesh Institution of Medical Science and Research. The grievance of the petitioner is that the public notice which was issued on 3.9.2009 in `The Tribune', giving 9.9.2009 as a last date for submission of applications for filling vacant management CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15458 of 2009 :{ 3 }: quota seats after second counselling, was issued in Bhatinda Edition only and not in the other Edition of the newspaper. The petitioner would submit that she being from Ludhiana, came to know about this publication through some family friend and submitted her admission form to respondent No.3-Institute. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for counselling on 10.9.2009. As per the petitioner, a student named, Jasmine Garcha, having 528 marks and Bikram Jakhar with identical marks were admitted against two management quota seats on 10.9.2009, though the last date of submission of forms was 9.9.2009. As per the petitioner, the Committee had also accepted three admission forms on 10.9.2009 of students, named, Amanpreet Singh, Aastha Wadha and Alisha Arora. The petitioner would further complain that two seats, one under the S.C Government quota and one under the management quota, were available in the Institute, but these seats were not filled. Public notice was issued on 11.9.2009 for filling up these two seats again in `The Tribune' published in Bhatinda Region. The management quota seat in general category, however, was not filled as it was statedly reserved as per the direction of the High Court. Another public notice was issued on 28.9.2009 for filling up the seat but the petitioner could not apply as the notice was not circulated in Ludhiana. She, however, learnt through some friend that the counselling for the seat under the management quota was to be held on 28.9.2009. When she went there she learnt that the counselling was postponed to 30.9.2009. The petitioner statedly appeared for the counselling for this date for admission against the vacant seat. As per the petitioner, the admission committee had changed two seats CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15458 of 2009 :{ 4 }: of management quota (S.C. Category) and management quota (General Category) and granted admission to one Navneet Kaur and admitted respondent No.4 against the other seat, who had secured 432 marks without considering the name of the petitioner, who had 520 marks. The petitioner met the respondents on 1.10.2009. She also made a representation to the Director, Medical Education but without any success. In this background, she filed the present writ petition to challenge the admission granted to respondent No.4 and sought direction that the petitioner instead be granted admission in the M.B.B.S. Quota as per her rights. The replies on behalf of all the respondents have been filed. In the reply filed by the Principal of respondent No.3-Institution, it is stated that the petitioner did not apply for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the extended counselling held on 30.9.2009 and as such, she could not be considered for admission in M.B.B.S. Course. The short question which, thus, would require consideration is whether there was any need or requirement for the petitioner to apply for admission for third counselling, which was held on 30.9.2009 and whether she had applied for this counselling, if it was the requirement. The counsel for the petitioner apparently has taken a contradictory stand in this regard. There is not much dispute that the requirement for applying for the seat was there and notice in this regard was published, which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-9. Initially, the counsel sought to contend that the petitioner could not apply as she did not learn about this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15458 of 2009 :{ 5 }: publication but subsequently, the counsel started making reference to documents to show that the petitioner was present in the Institute on 30.9.2009 and had appeared for counselling but was not granted admission. The submission that clear notice of 14 days was required to be issued would not mean much in the background, since the case set up by the petitioner herself is that she came to know about the counselling and had appeared and applied on 30.9.2009. If the stand of the petitioner is that she had come to attend the counselling, obviously she can not make a grievance about notice not being issued giving 14 days time. The respondent-Institute has justified this by pointing out that as per the directions, no admission could be made out after 30.9.2009 and that is why, notice was given for the last counselling on 28.9.2009, which was postponed to 30.9.2009. I find this justification to be valid for dispensing with the requirement of 14 days' notice, as otherwise these seats would have gone waste. The requirement of applying for admission is also made out from the record and publication and since the petitioner could not show that she had applied for admission for the counselling held on 30.9.2009, her name could not have been validly considered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE