HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.524 of 2011 (M/S) Dr. Hema Peeter W/o Shri Sarvesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents Dated:- 13th June, 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M. S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned brief holder for the State. The petitioner completed her B.A.M.S. Degree and applied for the Post Graduate Medical Course (Rash Shastra Evam Bhaishajya Kalpana) in Rajkeeya Ayurvedic Snatkottar Mahavidhyalaya, Rishikul, Haridwar pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st October, 2010. The petitioner was not allotted a seat on the date of counselling on the ground that there was no seat available, but, subsequently came to know that one of the candidates Dr. Dharmandra Kumar did not take admission and, consequently, the seat remained vacant. The petitioner immediately made a representation dated 01.11.2010 praying that since the petitioner was next to the said candidate Dr. Dharmandra Kumar in the order of merit and since the said candidate Dr. Dharmandra Kumar has not taken admission, the petitioner may be given admission on the vacant seat. This application remained pending. The respondent no.2 i.e. the Director, Ayurvedi and Unanai Health Services, Dehradun made a recommendation dated 24.01.2011 to the State Government to give admission to the petitioner on the vacant seat. Despite such recommendation, no final decision was taken. Thereafter, the State Government by its letter dated 08.02.2011 has declined to grant admission to the petitioner on the ground that the cut off date for admission was 31st October, 2010 and subsequently the representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2010 cannot be considered after the cut off date. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and the only ground for the rejection of the admission is that no admission could be granted after the cut off date which was 31st October, 2010 and that the petitioner’s representation was filed after the cut off date i.e. 01.11.2010. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds that the respondents in not granting admission and keeping the said seat vacant serves no useful purpose. Not only the decision is arbitrary but the court finds that it is absurd. A perusal of the paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit indicates that the last date for admission was extended upto 30th November, 2010. Consequently, the application of the petitioner for being given admission on the vacant seat was well within the zone of consideration as well as within the cut off period. The contention that the representation of the petitioner was not received before the cut off date is patently misconceived since the respondents had extended the date of admission upto 30th November, 2010. No doubt, the seat is vacant and keeping a seat vacant serves no useful purpose. In fact, the respondents are put to loss if the seat remains vacant. In the light of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents, in not granting the admission to the petitioner, is patently arbitrary. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.06.2011 Rawat