(L(JBgsR^qi[3) jndre^ '3§ano3 ^3Tp3}\[ n-iqsfii (^iJ^qBMBp •^d V.V3Q 0/0 P3MBJ§Vt[S3fey •^ ('O'O) Jndrey 'sSsnoo iB3ip3]/v 'BqisTqpy •£ ('O'O) Jndrey 'uvwe^Q •^•Q qj^Ssp^qqo ^tiaiu^j^dsa uop-eonpg i-BOtps]^ 'JO^OSJIQ •g ('O'O) Jndrey 'uBAvisqg •5I-Q •ud3Q arejiSM ^Iim^ pire q:lT3H A-re^ajasg qgnojq^ qj^gsp^qq^ jo s^B^g ••[ snsaaA (i.{jB§sp^qqo)jndsBpg Bj^dpuoQ Q/y luog mBJq5(3yi uqg o/g SS33S. fg p3§V luog jBmn^i 7[ed33Q '•/' ,^- SJ.NVOndctV-NON INVOnddV 'yu ("o'o) yndsviia iv aynivoianr jo lynoo HOIH 3Hi NI ^ v) ^^ 1 XI-HC—78 ^wwi a>Mich 3^ "41'41cl'4, 0'd)«;l®,[6«'1l'Hll< ^[.:c.,c.,M^.ilo//^^^ (ls/^°^ ••)=FI-SOO 3n^l''R?7 (yityi'f) an^I ^I R-ii* TST SfWI »1 •Rgim^ifegOT^T 13-9-2005 <*|^I<'|4)-< iiwcii'? 'fs^ <Fsi«;i< ^aiRFlSD^l L^ Mr. 6.5. Agrawal, Senior for petitioner Rajesh Agrawal in M.( Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Senior Ad| for petitioner Deepak Kumar Soni ii^ Mr. Sandeep Dubey, 60^ Chhattisgarh. Oral order. This order shall govern thedj Rajesh Agrawal for review of ordji Court in W.P.No.2527/2004, andaHc Kumar Soni for clarification of orcfle M.C.C.s ,are relating to the sanie| disposed of bythis common order. Brief facts leading to filing^ i Kumar Sont, who has filed M.C.C.No] well as Rajesh Agrawal, who has the Pre-Medical Test (for short- Kumar Soni appeared ds -OBC Agrawal nppeared as unreserved secured 235t^ position in the merit in the disabled/handicapped clasa A^vocate with Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate ;.C.No. 110/2005. focate with AAr, Rahul Jha, Advocafe iM.C.C.No.118/2005. Advocote for the Stote of (sposal of M.C.C.No.110/2005 fited by Jjer doted 18.10.2004 passed by this il^o M.C.C.No.118/2005 fited by Deepak •cfler dated 18.10,2004. As both these order, therefore, they are being of these M.C.C.s are that Deepak 1118/20)5 and W.P.hto.2527/2004, as •f^led AA.C.C.Nto.110/2005, appeared in f.AA.T.) Examination, 2004. Deepak c^tegory candidate, whereas Rajesh category candidate. Deepak Soni |st ond h^ also secured first position Accordingly, Deepak Soni was y XI-HC—78 ~3^ ^[•41<'1'4, •ES'^ffy'ie/fayray wmT<ft*((<*» la^zoo 3n^riR^T(yiI^<<ti<?) <MI^S;1 W K;-< ^n <HI^I st>*-iicf) ^«llt^<«i^tl3ff^?T ^«b|i|fcl4i-<'W^ tf 'fwst <fa«;i< ^aiRn sii^i urireser^ed seciired intimoted to appear for coun^i communicotion, he appeared for College, Raipur on 6-8-2004. admission to him dgainst the disa^le that the seot is meant for whereas, Deepak SoniappecTed \i\ candidote, further that he had qualifying examinotion, therefore, said PMT examinotion as unreservey minimum percentage was 50%. Deepak Soni s case is that it unreserved category candidate qualifying exoniination was eligible whereas, SC/ST and OBC candidatej qualifying examination were eligible But, once a candidate appeared in under the unreserved category is to be decided as per the Examinofion irrespective of his per< |As such, his challenge is thot decisicjn pollege, Raipur, is contrary to the Ri|l [the communication Annexure P-1 slling and in response to thot 4dmission before the Deon, Medical H^wever, the Dean refused to give disa^led/hondicapped class on the 9round eser^ed cafegory disabled class candidate the said PMT Examincri'ion as OBC only 49.33% marks in the 10+2 |ie was not eligible to appear in the category candidote for which the whk» quot|a js true that os per the PMT Rules, an had secured 50% marks in the [to nppear in the PMT Examinotion, fe who had secured 40% marks in the to appear in the PMT Examinotion, •he said PMT Examinotion, whether or SC/STor OBC quota, his merit secured by him in the PMT ^entage in the quatifying exaniination. Annexure P-1 of the Deon, Medical jles and not legal, and he prayed thot quashed ond by way of writ of m^ks ble XI-HC—78 'S^ '<{WM<i, '3^'IA'W, fa<'1l-Liy WHCff thWcb "^^00 sn^T'q^? ('^fg^tf) <MI^I ^I Kiro '^TT sn^T^lN? ?«Si<^<^f^t <^1^1 <<iWi<'l;il-< t|14fii'if'fetZt <fat<lt ' ^siRnsii^i ^nandamus the respondents be dire{rte( Soni as per Annexure P-2. Return was filed on behalf |No.2527/2004, in which it hns been ^531 marks out of 900 in the PMT fras further been mentioned that Ifld' ^orm for appearing in PMT examinot, ^here wos no separote quota for |miendment insert'ed on ^ Moy, ^( ^imended so as to include handicapt^ed 2tc., and that amendment furtheri •eservotion to the handicapped per^ons •t'o the extent of 3%. vide notificatioh ^nnexure R-2. As per Annexure R| bllotted for admission on the basis 41 &overnment nominees and free dire{rted to grant oKlmission to Deepak PWT fhrough P^T has been shown. Th 1/ertical as well as horizontal reserva('ion (vere reserved for OBC cotegory jntroduced by Annexure R-l, ffertical reservation, ond 3% of 11 fherefore, no seporote horizontal |of respondents No.l to 3 in W.P. i^ientioned that Deepak 5oni secured e^amination nnd his rank was 230. It dote for submission of applicotion |on wos 24-4-2004 ond tilt that time h^ndicapped persons. However, vide 4004, in Rule 4 (5) definition was as o Class in addition to Sainik conferred benefit of horizontal by suitably amending Rule 4 (5) Annexure R-l, ond the schedule is -2 total seots and details of seats ^f All India quota as well as Central seats available for admission i^ Schedule also gives break-up of erva|'ion. As per the Schedule, 11 seats ^nd by virtue of the amendments harx^icapped class «yas given only 3% conies to 0.33 i.e. less than half, r^servcrt-ion for handicapDed persons XI-HC—78 75Er.';?nzn^pT, ®fllyi<o,l^iRTy : HI*1<'(1 «»*iiqi • ••- - •- •• --———^^ 200 3ii^?[ TR^ (y^'i?) S . diAfl 3BI fi;-ll* ^E^ ^fT^I *4i^ ?-Wi<?f< ^cf 3?I^?T -^ of The T^ible liWld'ii-) HW<-&^^S <h^K ^'^(a-4 sn^T of sears available OT ditf'erent rt'ilcal reservotion as well os horizontal R-l is Atmexure R-3, which clearly lintroduced vide Annexure R-l could handicapped class belonging to 10 were given that benefit. less than 50% marks in the Higher in the PAAT Exanfination only if he ccjtegories. Deepak Soni had secured Examination, which is less than 4ppear in the PMT Examinotion as an |be allowed to take ony benefit of m^ant for unreserved category. The to appear in the PMT Examination ilo^igs to OBC cotegory disentitles him meant for unreserved seots. was arrayed as respondent No.4 in was given adrnission against ^eat even though he secured less ^xaminort'ion. Noticeofthis petition ije^h Agrawal. An affidnvrt' of service that the notice issued to Rajesh :fflt'egor|ywh Secontlary o( OBC was niade. Copy of the cotegories and classes as per vert'i^ reservotion as amended by Annexur^e demonstrotes that the amendment iconfer tangible benefits onfy t4 unreserved cotegory and ST cat'egor|y The cdhdidote who had securdd Secondory Exaniination could appea^ belonged to any of the reserved 49.33% marks, in the Higher 50%, therefore, he was eligible to OBC candidate. Hence, he cannot horizontal reservation,-which is very fact of Deepfld< Soni's eljgibilit^ depends upon the fact that he to claini benefit of horizontat However, Rajesh Agrawal wh<( the above writ petition (W.P.No.i the unreserved handicapped class ^Tiarks than Deepok Soni in the PMT ^uce issued to respondent No.4 Raje^l ^as^filed on behalf of Deepak Soni belo^ig reservkrtjon 252^/2004) Raje^h ^-" XI-HC—78 '3:ST-<<l'41':1'il,-0Ti1'9*IS,^Cll-H^< WHCdthNlcb "^200 SI^I'q^' (T^^q) 31I^('?? Rl-fi'h' ^^ <Ki^?i s?i*ii^ ct)Wj<'l<A^ "W^ff ^f fssil <f<i^i< i;sfRn3i^?i Office |of W(S 1 |Agrawal has been left in the [clerk, has received the notice ftherefore, the service has been aff4< ^iot appear, and after hearing coun^i >eepak Soni OV.P.NO.2527/2004) Jated 18th October, 2004. The D| >ean, AAedical College Raipur, were »f Deepak Soni against the mreserved cotegory seats. Against this order Rajesh ^ppeal before the Division Bench ^egistered as L.P.A.No.64/2004 ancj I-.P.A. against the order dated However, vide order doted 29-4-1 bunch of LPAs were dismissed on ire not maintainable. Therefore, th| iated 18-10-2004 could not be Forced Rajesh Agrowol to file reviei^ Court- doted 18-10-2CX)4. In thesje [)etition M.C.C.No. 110/2005 on 12-5-3 •sf W.P.hto.2527/2004 was not servefl ippe^r and the order doted 18-10-i Dean, and one Komal Das, receipt jand acknowledged on l-10-2004, F^cted. However, Rajesh Agrawal did i^el for the parties, the petition of allowed by this Court vide order frector, Medical Educotion and the Jdirected to consider the admission hanpicapped quota seot reserved in Ifr 2005 A^rawal preferred o Letters Patent |of this Court, which came to be interim stay was granted in that lp-10-2004 passed by this Court. the said L.P.A. nlong with other th^ ground that Letters Potent Appeals i^ legality and correctness of order te^t-ed by the Division Bench. That petition agoinst the order of this circurnstances, he filed review •^005 on the ground that the notice r-ve^) upon him, therefore, he could not was passed without hearing him 2004 '•'- XI-HC—7S 1'^'All^HAl,;'E9TiTy'Ko7^<c1iyS< NIHCTI »^iw '" " "^^ ^ SII^I'q^i' (<^lly»4) 3n^TTTR;-< ~^S ^t^i StiHitft ?^<l i< ^Ct <H<^I -4+ <(iwi<'i41-< 'v^i ^^S <r«it<;i< '^sffiWSII^'?! Agrc^/al prejudicialto his interest, ns suc^ reviewed. I have heard Mr. 6.5. K.R. Nair, lenrned Advocote on !i/ Tiwari, learned Senior-Advocate H<i behalf of Deepak Soni: and Mr. on behalf of the St<rte of Chhatti^i Perusal of the affidavit fiU of notice through which thenoti Raipur shows that notice was l^ College, Raipur on 1-10-2004. Th( 2004. After filing this review pet show or produce any-material presumed or }t can be held that t ' Agrawal by the Medical College. the nameof Rajesh Agrawal, C/<^ College, Raipur, but the fact which shows that the Dean had seri before the decision of that writ Office of Dean, Medical Collegi specifically in the ncime of Rajesh) the Deon, Medical College, Raipur, the order be set aside ahd his case be I, lenrned Senior Advocate with Mr. >ehalf of Rajesh Agrawal; Mr. Kanak ith Mr. Rahul Jha, learned Advoccrt'e on Sjandeep Dubey, learned 6ovt. Advoccrt-e i^garh. id by Deepak Soni as well as the copy :e was served in the Medical College, ift ort the Office of Dean, Medical notice was made returnable by 6-10- tion, Deepak Soni has not been able to the Court through which it con be )ie said notice was served upon Rajesh V.1 is true thot the said notice was in tSean, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical that there is nothing on record )ved the said notice on Rajesh Agrawal petition. The notice was left at the j^, Raipur on 1-10-2004 md it was AycMcA. Hence, it was the duty of it/here Rajesh Aqrnwal was studyinq. to befbre remlains ^-' XI-HC—78 ti-°ci^ii<iici^, ^Til'M'i^Tsidi'yy, WRtrthw^i W^200 sn^T'RRi' <yiiy!<i«() rfii^y +1 !<;-i W dll^l **1 ?«!itJ^•yfea <H1^1 -7 +w!<'<<il't ^iii'ff^f'fe'et <l"itsi<. ^st^RSHi^T c<tuld ensure that the notice was unfort'unately, ns has been mentioi^ed record, which shows that the noticje the circumstances, Rajesh Agrawa) lapse of the C)ean, Medical Collegel, am of theconsidered opinion thot be reviewed as Rajesh Agrawal and argue his case before this 2004 is reviewed and Mr. 6.5. behalf of Rajesh Agrawal is No.2527/2004. I have also heard Mr. 6.5. ' AAr. K.R. Nair, learned ^dvocate or< Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate wi| behalf of Deepak Soni; and Mr. on behalf of the State of Chhattis^arh The main thrust of argumen|t Advocote was that as the horizontal candidates compartment-wise, unreserved cotegory, and he o( reserved cotegory candidate, ^erved upon Rajesh Agrawal, but above, nothing has been placed on was served upon Rajesh Agrawat. In cannot be hetd responsible for such a sg^, Raipur. Therefore, on this count, I lorder dated 18-10-2004 deserves to not get opportunity to represent Co|jrt. Accordingfy,'order doted 18-10- A^rawal, Senior Adwcote oppearing on {lermitted to argue on main W.P. S^ndeep ^grawal, learned Senior Advocate with behalf of Rajesh Agrawal; Mr. Kanak ^h Mr. Rahul Jha, learned Advocate on Dubey, learned &ovt, Advocate i, on merits ofthe case. of Mr. 6.5. Agrawal, learned Senior reservotion was made for disabled Soni was mrt a candidate of ap|seored in the exomination as OBC tHerefore, he wsSimt entitled for __c\— De|epak •T'^ XI-HC—78 ~5^ •^WW^, QxKw ^^\W^ N(*«'(lsbHt^i ?M200i <MI^I 'CR^T (icily<<»lt} - d<l^l'?;! Kt-ti* ^V <ifl^T ^^fich ?«tl*9<^f6a<Ht^ -s v;^<hl?rf<n<tt-i *ii*^n( t? f^f^ <Fttt^.ii[ "^st^FTsn^ admission in the handicapped cla^s reserved for unreserved cotegory candidates. On the other hand, Mr. Kohcik Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the mandcr(e of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opport-unitie^ Protect'ion of Rights ond Full Participcrt-ion) Act, 1995 (for shorjt the Act of 1995'),'*atl6overnment educational institutions and other educational inst-itutions receiving oid from the 6overnment, shnll reser|/e not less than three per cerrt- seats for persons with disabilities". D Rajesh Agrawal in the competitive Deepak Soni was entitled for adm ^epak Soni secured high marks than PMT Examination, therefore, 6n merit ssion, being a handicapped candidate, against the seot reserved for dis<41ed quota, asthe unreserved category seats were meant for all cotegorie^ , provided the candidat-e secures high marks then he will be entitled •for admission on merit. Therefore, Deepak Soni was entitled for acjmission. Mr. Konak Tiwari further argued thot the Schedule prepar^d by the Director, Medical Education showing break-up of vertical ns defective as in this Schedule, on handicapped candidotes, whereas, well as horizontat reservotion was y two seats have been reserv.ed for total number of secEts for the first year M.B.B.S. course was 100. Th^refore, as per Section 39 of the Act of 1995, the Deon, Medical Colle^e, Raipur md the Director; Medical 'admission to thrcc atudcnts, whcpeas Cducntion were duty bound to give .etPC> XI-HC—78 sn^i'qn K-{ T^ <rfi^T ^Hiqi '3;5Er'^INI<?1'4;'8Tlly'l<o,r°1<ni'M^< *11HWt th*(|c(i •^200 •d<l^l 4?!+ (''^3^?) ¥^<H^•^d <fl(^t -^ brochure undert^k'mg thereafter ih as per rhe 5cheduleonlyT«i?osecff^ He further orgued that the further shows thot while No.2 A 3 were required to give category candjdates ond filled based on merit as per Regul^rt- (Criteria for Identificafion of Admission Capacity of Medical Coll) Regulations of 1997). Therefore, i^i A 3 were required to give admisj class, hlaving heard learned couns^l record, relevant Rules-of the 1995 and the Regutotions of 1997 regarding admission into medical c^l Now, coming to the first po^i for admission under the candidote, Rule 5 of the Chhatt| Snatak Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, rule (2) of Rule 5 prescribes that seats shall be prepared on the Physjcs. Zoology A Biology. Jn thj were reserved tor handicapped class. issued by respondents No.2 A 3 •t^iking ndmission process, respondents ncfmission first to all kinds of reserved only remainin9 seats were to be •ion 8 of the ^ftedical Council of India Students Admitted in Excess of sges) Regulations, 1997 (for short- fhe the first instance, respondents No.2 ;ion to three candidates of disabled unresdrved 20103 btis's 4iWi<-l41-1 XIWl' tf 'fS^Zt ifatiK ^isfRnaii^r brochure for the part-ies, I have perused the ;, and the provisions of the Act of (ssued by the Medical Council of India illeges. ojint whether Deepak Soni wos entitled category as a disabled class sgarh Chikitsa Totha Dant Chikitsa I, envisa9es selection process. Sub- nterit list for reserved and unreserved ?^s*s of marks'sobtained in Chemistry, i^ merit list roll number, name, cadre .fSs-c> '^ XI-HC—78 ~S:3( •'^fW^, •S^WW^'^Wy^^ HIHCTt »*ii<=b ' '""""" :';"W![. 200 3n^l'CR?r(1pfg^t) ; 3H^T'^lt<-< TW^II^^l sh*li<^ '&^(({<^ ^^a sqr^T - o <<ii<tli'i41'< *<i*<<-i( Tiisvt <l«it<;i< ^ siRn <Hii<i and category along with total candidates were to be mentioned. category-wise. However, while names of unreserved cotegory ce| were to be mentioned in the obtairied by each candidate. Rule 5 lays down thot even th^ entitled to have their position in their ranks come within unreserved secured by them in the PMT category list was to be prepare^l candidates irrespective of their cnndidafes were entitled to be provided they secure their positi^n the basis of marks obtained byl unreserved category seats were basis of their merit irrespective 41 of these unreserved category seat^, basis for the handicapped class formula, Deepak Soni even thoug^i being a handicapped condidote, r'iesecved under unreserved categoty number of marks secured by the . The merit list was to be prepared p^eparing the unreserved category list, well as reseryed category candidates chrc^iological order on the basis of marks The^efore, second part of sub-pule (2) of reserved category candidates were ^he unreserved cotegory list provided cotegory seots 6n the basis of marks excutiination. In other words, unreserved on the basis of marks secured by ^otegory. Even the reserved cotegory rai^ked in the unreserved cotegory seots in the unreserved cotegory seots on them. This further indicotes that bvailable to all the candidates on the ^f the category they belonged and out seat^, one seat was reserved on horizontal ca^didate, therefore, applying the sanie nppedred as an OBC candidat'e, but WiEis entitled for handicapped seort- seots on the basis of his merit. XI-HC—78 '3^^l<.<l?1^, ^xil'M'lta^ faoliyy tnw(rg»tn^i :Wf200 sn^rTR?? ('yld^'i?) 3ii^('^i fiaw T^T rt'CH ^\^i ^RItti •?ww sfsd sn^i -If •tiwfi-i'n'i w^vS^fest <(«i«ii< ^TsiRnsii^i position thot peepak It is odmitted than Rcyesh Agrawal who nppearec| Therefore, I do not find ony sul| counsel for the respondents thot OBC candidote and having less examinotion, was not entitled for handicapped class seat. This part) to the arguments of learned irrespective of the fact thot SC/^ appeor in the examination on the him in the qualifying examinotion, was entitled to have his rank in secured in the PAAT. exominotioA reservation of handicapped (5) of Rule 4, then handicapped whom no separate reservotion denied admission if any one had se| candidote of unreserved cotegory. As has been mentioned earlf of OBC & SC, separffte seats wer^ the seots meont for SC &08C ww^ j ttian half, therefore, no separate bdsis Soni had secured more marks as ah unreserved category candidate. ilj>stance in the orguments of learned (>eepak Soni, who had oppeared as an |than50%.morks in the qualifying o^lmission against unreserved cate9ory •2 of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 is answer |;ounsel for the 'respondents that >T and OBC candidate was eligible to i4sis of 40% or more marks secured by (>ut while preparing the merit list, he \he merit list on the basis of marks As mentioned above, when 3% was to be made os per sub-rule belonging to SC ond OBC. for made in their cotegory, cannot be :ured more marks than a hondicapped er, for handicapped class candidates not reserved by the respondents as ; 11 A 12 and 3% of the sanie was less •eservation for handicapped categopy candidotes cartdidates wots L... XI-HC—78 ^'^iaipn^R, ®fl1'M'i<o,Rcfwli< *11*<CTI<hN|c(» "^200 3D^?I''R^ (lqty'i'sr)" <i{6,W ^I Vs-U'h ^TT <Hl^l %*ri^i 6«l|iti<'V^S Sf^S -\ iWif?rat?Ti)pwif 'if'fo^ <fa«i< ^sjRiiist^i condidat'es Secfliori of these categories was made. Efl by respondents No.2 & 3, as mentj was defective for the reason made for disabled class required to make reservation for 3% as per the provisions of they ought to have admitted th provisions of Section 39 of the entitled for admission and onl( therefore, respondents No.2 A 3 Soni, Rajesh Agrawal, and the admitted. At the time of erguments, 1)1 as the Dean, Medical College, Raipij have stated that one seat had cjl March, 2005 ond against the secr^ order to give full effect to Sect save the career of students, who the respondents are directed to ^ to Rajesh Agrawat os one seat- inforined to the Court that 16.10^2004, Deepak Soni was |/en otherwise, the Schedule prepared joned in the earlier part' ofthis order, only 2 seats i.e. 2% reservation was i, whereas, the respondents were yisabled class candidates not less thnn 39 of the Act, 1995. Therefore, hee students in accordance with the ^ct of 1995. Three candidotes were ^ three candidates were available, ^ould have easily admitted i.e. Deepak ^•hird candidate of ST was already )he Director, Medical Educatibh as wetl |r, were present in the Court, and they Iready fallen vacant in the month of Rajesh Agrawal can be adjusted. In ion 39 of the Act of 1995 and also to jire litigating since last (d>out qne year, ive admission to Deepak Soni ond also already fallen vacont. It wos also p^i~su<mt to the Court order dated to ott-end the classes ond he was hbs alloited r'. XI-HC—78 '3^'<(i'iii<'i'Li,i«>ti1yie, fs|<ii<Hti,< HWWI fhHlcin •^2.00^ SII^CT t[^' ( ^q(.^<i|<i^) SII^T ?5T !<;'H '^TT^ti^'l sOHict) fff ^^<f R flf^I <KI^ -1. attending classes, therefore, loot be any difficutty in giving admissio|i to both the candidates. If will not be out of ploc responderrts No.2 A 3 thot as per of 1995, not less than 3% seats cah be reserved for disobled candidates. There are 100 seats in MedicalC^llege, Raipur, therefore.they have to reserve three or more seats fori category of SC & OBC, looking to less than0.50%, in that case, t meant for disabled candidates candidates in order to utilize the these two categories, he shall be the authorities can devise any oth seat is to be utilized for SC & OBQ • <(>io!<'i41'i '<WfiI ^ffezt <(«i«;K .^3jfg?3n^i, , • .. ing to this fact nlso, thcrc should not s to observe for future guidance of the mandote of Secfion 39 of the Act disabled candidates, as such, in the seats reserved for,them, 3% comes to \\e respondents can reserve 3 seot ^ n rotation for OBC A SC cafegory third sect or they can prescribe 3 rd seat for OBC & 5C, and if canditJate of disabled class qualifies from jiven adniission against the 3 seat or ^r method, but it is clear that the 3 rd Now coming to M.C.C.^to.^18/2004 filed by Deepak Soni for direction to the Dean, Medical Coll^ge, Raipur, to give admission to him is concerned, Mr. Kanak Tiwari, le^irned Senior Advocote argued that Deepak Soni wos not being admitp'ed on the ground thot in the order dated 18-10-2004 this Court' whi^s allowing the writ petition directed the respondents to consider the case.of the pej'ltioner for admission against the handicapped quota sea^, and there was no clear direction for -»r^ XI-HC—78 ^TT) r<ii<iio<4,"sSTtiy4i<;D^R((ii+)y.J" WH'P(T%NT<*> ••wtlzoo' 311^1431* ('iq(y<<i«T)^ SB^I ^T K;-<l<h ^?T ^t^i sh*l TO(IW^lfel3RI^I -l^ 'tiiw'fl-i iiicil' 4isvt <P!I($|< ^sifin sii^i ? thlnt giving admission to Deepak Soni) College, Raipur to Deepak Soni. It Cottege, Raipur and the Director, the whole judgment could not mak^ issued by this Court. If they wer^ they ought to have sought opini^n Officers df the Stote, but they w{ of this Court on the pretext consider the admission, as such, giving admission. When thepetitio^i ground.which was not admission to him, then the respojic case of the petjtioner for petitioner's fulfilling other requisi^e used with a view that if petitionfer admission on any ground other thc^i in the writ petition, then they directions are normally issued consider admission of the eligibitity criteri'a and other condit considerled weite s^ condidbte as was told by the Decin, Medical lis unfortunote that the Dean, Medical (^edical Education, even after reading de out as to whot were the directions having ony doubt in their minds, then from the Law Deportnient or Law (fere not entitled to sit over the order since the Court has directed to there was no specific direction for of the petitioner was allowed on the by the respondents for 9iving ought to have considered the l^nission, of course subject to the conditions. The word 'consider was ifer Deepak Soni was not entitled for the ground considered bythisCourt- entitled to refuse admission. Such thcrt- the concerned authority can toking into considerotion all the lons for admission. spojidents addnission. ^^'^^^^^^^^s-:;: (g9) XI-HC—78 7^'3?Pira?T, 0fl1y6,; F°«11<iy HWWI «»*<icb •-^IZGO 31I^F'q^Er(ij<<I^«l<Er) sn^i ^i R-fi* ?t?n ^i^?i »+ii<h »«iiia<^lfeidii^i -(£ <tti<llfltilt 'RPRTf ^f 'fe^ <Pif^f< ^siRn aii^i ''^.'^ In the result,the obove tw^ terms and the respondents ore Soni and to Rajesh Agrawal, agoin^ Rajesh Agrawat is olready pursuin^ move the Medical Council of India ft»i I.A.No.2466/2005 This dpplication has been fil^i Deepak Soni, that first term MCCs are disposed of in the above d^ected to give admission to Deepak the seot which has fallen vacant as his studies. If necessary, theycan . f^rgetting approval ofthe admissions. fil^d course have storted from 9 d respondents be directed to allow exaniinations. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned| respondents are ready to allou^ examinations when they are going Having considered the statement mode bythe Dean, Medi^nl wns allowed to ottend classes therefore, I om of the opinion for the respondents to allow Deep^k which are in progress. In view of the ffttt that &ee|}iak Back^os in the year 2004, ond und| in M.C.C.No.118/2005 on behalf of ex<u]ninations of the first year M.B.B.S. ]|f this monfh, and therefore, the Deepak Soni to appear in the said ith tlt fa4t dnd thtrt 6ovt. Advocate submitted that the Deepak Soni to appear in the be held in next term. thot Deepak Soni, as per the :nl College, Raipur, before the Court-, he was attending the classes, there should