VBC 1 WP9711.11-21.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.9711 OF 2011 Dr.Amit Anant Wagh. ..Petitioner versus Armed Forces Medical College & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Sarang S.Aradhye for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govinlar with Ms.Anamika Malhotra for Respondent No.1. Mr.Anand Shalgaonkar i/b. Mr.S.B.Shetye for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. November 21, 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner seeks to challenge the communication addressed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, the Third Respondent, to the First Respondent refusing to grant registration/approval to the admission of the Petitioner for the M.Ch Course in Neuro Surgery. 2. On 28 September 2011 this Court was moved in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a candidate who desired to pursue his Post Graduate studies for the M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery at the First Respondent. In its order dated 28 September VBC 2 WP9711.11-21.11 2011, the Court noted that the Petitioner before the Court in that Writ Petition (Writ Petition 7768/11 Dr.Rajesh Kumar Meena vs.Armed Forces Medical College) was placed seventh in the order of merit. The first candidate did not accept the seat and the second candidate was admitted. The First Respondent had a capacity of three seats for the M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery. The College had one Associate Professor since the previous Professor and Head of Department was transferred on 4 August 2011. In the order of the Division Bench the following observations were made in paragraph 8: “8. The following position emerges: (i) The ratio of teachers to students is to be 1:2 both for Professors and for Associate Professors; (ii) In the event that a proposal for upgradation which has been submitted by the First Respondent is accepted by the third Respondent, two students could be admitted against the upgraded post of Professor. In any event, even on the existing position two students can be admitted as against the post of an Associate Professor in view of Regulation 12(4) of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The First Respondent would have to fill up the additional seats on the basis of the order of merit. The Petitioner, as we have noted earlier ranks at serial No.7 of the order of merit. The candidate at serial No.1 of the merit list had expressed his unwillingness to join. As a result the candidate at serial No.2 has been admitted on 1 August 2011. In the event that an additional seat or seats VBC 3 WP9711.11-21.11 become available on or before 30 September 2011, the First Respondent shall necessarily have to abide by the order of merit by offering admission strictly according to the order of merit. No further directions are necessary in this proceeding. The Government Pleader assures the Court that Maharashtra University of Health Sciences shall take a decision about the proposal which has been submitted by the first Respondent within a period of one week from today. In the event that any additional seats become available, upon the communication of MUHS being received on or before 30 September 2011, the first Respondent shall fill up these seats in accordance with merit. Counsel for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent will duly inform the candidates on the merit list besides putting up a notice on the website so as to facilitate information to the candidates.” The Petition was accordingly disposed of. 3. As this Court noted in the earlier judgment, even on the existing position two students could be appointed against the post of Associate Professor in view of Regulation 12(4). The Court observed that the First Respondent would have to fill up an additional seat on the basis of the order of merit. These facts would indicate that even prior to 30 September 2011 which was the cut off date, an additional seat for the M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery was available. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner in these proceedings was placed at Sr.No.3 of the order of merit and since VBC 4 WP9711.11-21.11 the first candidate had declined to accept the seat and the second candidate had already been admitted, the seat was required to be allotted to the Petitioner. The Court has been informed that upon the passing of the order of this Court dated 28 September 2011 the seat was offered to the Petitioner on 3 October 2011; the Petitioner accepted the seat on 4 October 2011, the medical examination of the Petitioner took place on 11 October 2011 and the admission was confirmed by the First Respondent on 12 October 2011. Counsel appearing on behalf of the MUHS has also fairly stated that in view of the facts which have emerged before the Court, it was clear that the seat was available and prior to 30 September 2011 and as noted by this Court, two students could have been admitted by the First Respondent as against the available post of an Associate Professor having regard to the provisions of Regulation 12(4). In view thereof, we direct MUHS to grant its registration/eligibility approval to the admission granted to the Petitioner for the M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery by the First Respondent. We dispose of the petition in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. VBC 5 WP9711.11-21.11 Parties to act on an authenticated copy issued by this office. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A. A. Sayed, J.)