y' HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURB GMWA .^a^ ARN: SSsASffWt Connn:- Mon't^ Shri VtJayKumar Shrivasta^ Hon'bteSiri DhirendrdiMishr-a, JJ. - Writ^etition No, 19S8 of 2004 Peti'tioner : Resoondents Dr. Prmnod Kimisu* pahar-ia, S/o E>hK.N.6upta. <ged obout 26 yeor's, OccupCTtion Student, R/o 489, New Mohcn Nogor, Thathipur, Swnlior ( ). Versws 1. State of Chhattlsgarh.. Through Seeretary, bepartnient of Healih and Medictri Education, Mtaitralaya, Shastri Chowk, RGipur (C6) 2. Ptjaiwaharlal l^tehru Medicat Colege, Raipir, through its Dean, Raipur (CS) 3; Shri Atin Xundu, Aged about 27 years, Studcrit of Pirst yejar M.S. (Orrti^iedics), Pt Jawahartal Nehru Medical College, Raipu* (C6) Presa'it :- Shpi P.&iwakar', Senior Advocate with Shri Adtt Ainhaz, Shri Utkardi Verma; Oy 6over(nient Advoeate for •tde State/pespondentii No.l wd 2. ShrtV.fi. Tamask<r, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAt-ORt> C&trted 11"* January, 2007 ) The following order of the Court wos delivered by Vyay Kuinar Shrwastnvn, J : In the yecy 20CM respcm^nH^.3 a|yeared m^^^^ Exunination 2004 (All Xndia) and got throigh it. He was allotted .MS (Opthalmology) degree couTSe._,ibte''1-ook admission and proaecuted his studies in theSiAject fofacoupteofmonths. Lgteronjwailt'ofiStatePre 'tl ^. S ':i-a;S';!!Sssl-iaa*ies''SaSS*S^:"^^^S l* P6 test 2004 was deckred. Respondent No.3 passed that^xamtfiation too. He resi9ned fr'om his setri- allotl^d to him or^the basis of AU India Pre P6 Exam <nd took p<rt in counselingconducted for dlotment of seut' asa result of ChhattiS9<rh Pre P® Test. Respondent No.3 wcs atlotted Pe (Orthopcdics) degree course. Thercafter he took admission and prosecuted hisstudiesand bynowhe hos completedhis course. 2) Petitioner herein oppeared in Pre P®Test 2004 and got through it, but on counseling, he was deprived froni getting P6 (OTrtNipedics) degree course, ca the seot was occupied by reqwmdent No.3, however, he was awardedp& (Orthopedics)dipfomocourse. He tookadmisslon in that course and is contimiing his studies. 3) Petitioner has challerged the admissiCTt of respondent No.3, infer alla, on the ground that respondent No.3 by ptaying frauct and in violdftifin of Niyam U.4.1 of the ehhattisgarh Medical Snotkottm' Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2004 (henceforth 'the Niyom, 20)4") ytddnission in PS &e9ree Cour'ai. In oppu9nation, reapondents No.l and 2 hwe plecded thfft the odmisston of respondent No.3 is in accordance with the rules. Respondent No.3 contested the petition ond atso chaHeiged the tocus sfaidi of petitioner aswett as raise the question of nbn-jdndef-of pcrt'ies. 4) Retying on Nlyam U.4.1 of the Niyani, K)04, petitioner'scontentlon is that respondent No.3 was not etigible to chonge his subject; thcrefore, allotfflent of P6 (Othopedics) Oegree Gourse to hiffl was wpeng ancKllegal. 'Petjtioner's further contention is that' in order- to take part m coun^tir^! respondent No.3 tendered falsettffidtwit, i.e.Aflnexure-'R-1/2, and on ttie strenglh of fatse affidavit he suectedeil in counseling and dlotmentof seot' of his choice. Onthe other hand, tearned coui^el for respondents htoJl <md 1^;:_—.___ •^.^ 2 supported the le9i'timacy of adfflission of rMponden* NftX'Resporictot No.Snot only claimed his admission as ydtld, alsocontended that petitioner has no /ociisio challerge his admission, even his petition suffer* from the defect of non-joinder of part'ies. 5) Durin9 the course of a^uments; despite OUP insistence petltioner failed to demonsh'ate any b«a-on ajbsequait crimissionof the cehdjdate on thestren9th of clea'ance of State Pre P6 Test,who r^i9n his earlier' seots . which he procured on the basis of Pre P6 Entronce Exam (All India), even froro perusd of comptete Niyam, 2004 , we could not find ony sudi bar. So far an Niycnn 11.4.1 of the Niycun, 2004 is concerned, it is reywtoesed bebw : *11.4.l Acandidate so admittettwill not be entitted to seek a chage of siAyect/course later on ony growid. No request for change of -' sAject shall be entertoined. The candidate shall aiso give an yndertaking that he/she Aali not make ory apptication, representation or petition for ehange sf siAjeet/course so allotted/ossigned to him/her." 6) TheoforesaidNiyamonlycrect'esabu'inchangeofaubJectandfrom bare reoding, itiis cleer that if a candidate has obtdned admtssion on the basis of State Pre P6 in accordance with the Niyahis, he is not entitled otherwise than inaccor-dance with Niycm U.4.2 to chtmgehis subjest. Here the case is completety different. ftespondent No.3 got (Ktmission on the basis of Pre P©Test (All India) and when he yat thriNgh the State f^ep® Entrance Test, he i^igned his seat whteh was accepted by.the concernect authorities and thereafter when hewas not admitted to any course, he appeared in State counselirw ond was dlotted with the seat in Orrtiopedfcs PQ Degree CQurse. Neither there tea^e:b<B" thany Niywns nor' his <dmission ] 1 is in any way a9<rinstaryNiyanis/Rules. ; .. y 4 7) So fu- as •thetrffidwit i.e. Armexure - R-l /2 te concemed, this affidwit hos t>eenswem on 09.07.8304aml tdmittedty respondent No.3 resi9ned his seat on 08.07.2004. Und<nibtedly, pn 09.07.2004 respondent No.3 was not sftidying in any of the Medical Cotlqes. Affidwitwos only taken so thcrt a person, who Is already studyiig in any course on •the bcsis of Chhattisgarfi Pre P6 Test, may not pfay fraud uwt oceufy another' Sedt. IT'ie requirement ofsubmission of affidwit was to supply th* infwmation'tothe Department that on the date of counseting, the candidate is not prosecuting his study in any of the Medical College, -rtierefore, t»hatever h<s been reduced intheaffidwitiwasfaroedtoprovide'thesaidinforfnation. 8) Annexure R-1 /2, which is an affidwit swom by respondent No;3, is reproduced as under; ".// VWtW // t ^t Min KUmar Kundu ai?it5(/gCT»n Ntlchil Kuraar Kundu »% 27 PigRft MIG-185, Tattbandh, Raipur ^.©^HW^®^ffiswcf/ wvSt^^try- 1. qS^tgiRtcRC-mTl^W^Wift'i,! 2. i®ft < 'S»r <!4 w^f ^ 9vSt <t ftllwn 'WlButeKt/'U'StM ^ 't-tmwlnt'i teft asHr,&lcti*it?;'f;ii^!T.i^^%iny''3^1^ ^i; . 3. • ^ 1^t^'nW^(i*»cf^ldiit^^ M^ ^ t5!Ii%? 'Wf'^/^t'^ ------ :i ' . ^ • ." VSFf -.- • • . , R-1M> :- ' • SWBR Wf Attn Itomar Kundu &TO» 9/7/04 // •tMW-S / / < ^f AUn Kumar Kundu aifflsf/ainsfi Nlkhll Kumar Kundu %% 2? pRRft MtG-185, Tattbantfh, Raipur ^?.G.) ww^ ijtSRr ^m/ w<ff ^ & <»>fe*t «t><ii* 1 ^t 3tffi i? ft& ip; gsg •W dtB<t*W "iri*i'fl ^at-j.tiK yfet:tiw tl : • . ;::.': : ; - ' : • / ft-tl'* - ' ' : ; ! • , '. ! ;' IRB '-- • ' , -:"" 1. vsasf .--SffSf Vined JKumar Stngti ft%%r?iw: Mtr.V^fhgh ;;'" ifcir Katni X^SR———— :w( Atin Kunaar Kyndu B/I/04 , • 322fc23"~is!U),..iiSBffia B gowri 2. •S-'RTffR— -w Dr. Beant Preet Kaur ftgr <i>i '•TPT S.Singh TOT JUBI Whar, Bifaspar Sd/-(illegibto) R.KJangdsy Notary, Advocate Raipur(C-.G.) Dated9JUL20CM" 9) Frorn Iwre readin9 of the affidavit, it is manifest that the affidavit has been sworn only to support that on 09.04.2004,respondent No.3 was not pn»secutin9 his study in ony P.6. (Degree or Diploma) course <nd unis not studying in any medical Cotlege. Un-disputedly, on 09.07.2004, respondent No.3 was not admitted in any Medical College therefore, neH+ier he siwm fatse affidavit nor he ptayed fraud. State who is •Ae authority t»adtnit candidates for P.6. Course has very fdrly in its retirn cenceded thert' Affidavit is not required to besubmitted by cmy provision of Niyam 2©04. 10) Here it is not out of place to mention thnt if o candidtrt'e is alftn»edto appear in All fiidia P.6. Entrance Excni ond at the same sessjon Mras permitted to appear ChheM'isgorh Pr^ P.&. Test, and his cppearance in both the examination Is legal how> con he be refused to eryoy M-s fruits, U. to select subject of his choice, inuccordance with the rules. 11} Wlthwit exploring whether the petition sufpers from non-jointter of partlesor /oeu?^ft»K//of'riiepetitioner,wedismissthepe*itionast»e«riEof the consideredoplnion thut adinission of respondent No.3 is neither (lliegol noraQainst anyroiles. Nocosts. -——— -— — Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- / DhirendraMishra Judge iE.4i!;£l_^.y;^,A^4,Ba..,.,iiS3>»teiil^ ^^s^^:^Si^^i ss