C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 10.5.2011 Radhika Chopra PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Chaudhary, A.A.G. Punjab. Shri K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. Shri A.S.Syan and Shri R.S.Rana, Advocate for respondents 7,10,14,15,17,19,22. Ms.Vibha, Advocate for respondent-13. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition by making a grievance that in the advertisement issued by the Baba Farid University of Health & Sciences, Faridkot, it has been given out that for admission to BDS/BAMS/ DHMS, applications were to be submitted upto 13.8.2009. In fact, this advertisement is merely a corrigendum of the earlier advertisement issued for the C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009(O&M) -2- said purpose. It was further given in Annexure P-3 that those who had already applied, need not apply again and most of the BDS seats under the Management Quota are lying vacant. Those who have not qualified in PMET will be admitted on the basis of PCB (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) Marks in 10+2 exam. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on his perceived grievance that the corrigendum issued vide Annexure P-3 on 29.7.2009 is at variance with the conditions given in the prospectus especially condition No.C(ii) and is also deviant from the clause of introduction which is extracted here below :- “C (ii) After second counseling, the seats left vacant in Private Institutes both in Government as well as Management/Minority quota shall be filled by the Management out of the eligible candidates who have qualified in PMET. However, in case of BDS, BAMS and BHMS, if the PMET qualified candidates are not available both from the University and on open advertisement, then the candidates who have appeared in PMET shall be admitted on the basis of their score in 10+2 or equivalent examination. If even such candidates are not available, then those who have not appeared in PMET will be admitted on the basis of 10+2 or equivalent examination. Even if such candidates are not available, the candidates other than belonging to Punjab shall also be considered subject to the condition that all such admissions are made on merit in a transparent manner after giving proper public notice.” C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009(O&M) -3- It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause C(ii) clearly lay down that in case of BDS, BAMS and BHMS, if the PMET qualified candidates are not available both from the University and on open advertisement, then the candidates who have appeared in PMET shall be admitted on the basis of their score in 10+2 or equivalent examination and even if such candidates are not available, then those who have not appeared in PMET will be admitted on the basis of 10+2 or equivalent examination. He thus, contends that since 10+2 examination or its equivalent was the determining eligibility criteria and the reference in the corrigendum of framing of merit on the basis of PCB Marks in 10+2 is impermissible, as it does not take into consideration the entire marks for the subjects in which a candidate may have appeared in PMET. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is totally misplaced. In Clause C(i) it is stipulated that if for BAMS/BHMS course of PMET qualified candidates are not available then out of the PMET appeared candidates, they shall be admitted on the basis of his/her marks in the qualifying examination in PCB and also in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) IN 10+2 examination. Clause C(i) is extracted here below :- C (i) For BAMS/BHMS course if PMET qualified candidates are not available then out of the PMET appeared candidates shall be admitted on the basis of his/her marks in the qualifying examination in PCB and also in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) in 10+2 examination. In case of BHMS, has secured 40% (for SC/BC 33%) marks in aggregate at 10+2 in PCBE as well as PCB group taken together. Para amended vide notification No.5/3/08-3HBIII/ 3389 DATED 30.5.2008.” C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009(O&M) -4- A perusal of the above leaves no room for doubt that it is the marks in PCB which are to be construed to be the determining factor while considering the merit of the students who have not qualified the examination for PMET. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thus has to be repelled, more so when the courses in question are clearly the courses for which the marks for PCB are the relevant consideration. The petition is thus held to be without any merit and is dismissed. However, before parting with the judgment, this Court feels constrained to say that the conditions which have been incorporated in clause C(i),(ii) are at best, to help to attain abysmal standards in medical education. It is shocking that persons who do not qualify PMET, are being selected for the courses for BDS/BAMS and likewise, the candidates who have not appeared in PMET, are also considered eligible and it seems that the only endeavour of the Government and the University is to fill up the management quota seats pertaining to the private institutions at any cost. The Court is constrained to question as to whether this indicates a concerted attempt to degrade, rather than upgrade the educational quality of such courses. The question that stares in the face, is that if the persons who have not even appeared for the PMET examination are to be considered for these courses, then why to conduct the examination for PMET at all ? With the displeasure expressed above, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent/University is advised to look into this aspect of the matter and revise their stand appropriately. (MAHESH GROVER) May 10, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO C.W.P. No.18642 of 2009(O&M) -5-