IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1649 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.02.2011 Neetu Saini ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Karamjit Saini, Advocate. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) The appellant was a candidate in a common medical entrance test for the academic sessions 2010. On the basis of the marks secured, she became entitled for admission in Ist year MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Amritsar. While the admission process was on, the minimum qualifying marks for physically handicapped candidates was reduced from 50% to 45%. The respondent No.4 who belongs to the said category and had secured 46% marks became eligible for admission in the Government Medical College. The petitioner accordingly was offered admission in a private medical college which she did not take. Aggrieved, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by the present appellant. LPA No. 1649 of 2010 [2] The short contention advanced is that the alteration of the criteria for the physically handicapped persons by reduction of qualifying marks having been made after the commencement of the counselling process, the entitlement of the appellant-writ petitioner could not have been adversely affected by the same. In the facts of the present case, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said question as, admittedly, no direction from the Court can be issued to admit the petitioner to the course for the Session 2010 which has already commenced and the last date for admission, under any circumstances, stipulated by the Medical Counselling of India as approved by the Supreme Court is over on 30.09.2010. The only question, therefore, would survive is the entitlement of the petitioner for admission to the next academic session on the strength of her performance in the examination that was conducted for the academic session 2010. Though in certain judgments i.e. Aman Deep Jaswai Vs. State of Punjab and others (2006) 9 SCC 597 the Apex Court has tried to carve out exceptions to the above Rule in order to mitigate the hardships that may have occasioned to a deserving candidate because of fixation of a cut off date for admission i.e. 30.09.2010 of every year, we are of the view that the said exceptions will not apply to the present case. The appellant, admittedly was offered admission in an alternative Institution for the present academic session itself, which was declined. That apart, any direction for admission in the next academic year on the basis of the performance of the present year could only be LPA No. 1649 of 2010 [3] at the cost of eligible candidates of the next year who are not before the Court. We are, therefore, of the view that no relief should be afforded to the appellant-writ petitioner at this juncture. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, is dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 17.02.2011 'ravinder'