3^T '^1<<1<?1<1, ®TD<H'I<S, Rlo'il*)^ MW^I *Mt* [^P^o. S'Ul-^/'Lo&fc an^r IRW CI^f^3??T) »31I^I ^I R;-<i<<l ,/T^ a?(T^r ^qr^ ••s,. 'FRIIWHf?" 3D^T 4. fWrit Petition under Art, iLC. Hon'bie Shr'i Dhirendra Mish^a, JJ qn<rf^F'i 'RTR'^ff '^,fsT^t' ^i^rt 1;'3iRiH 3?I^T Ku. Sujata Singh, &/o &r. (Ailojor) T.A. Singh, ag.ed about 19 years, R/o Qrt-. OB-1, CSEB Colony, Tifra- iiiaspur, District Bifaspur (C6). -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Heaith & Family Welfare, Medical Education &epartment, bKS Bhcwan, Raipur (C6). The Oirector, Medical Education, Raipur (C6). Chhattisqarh Institute of Medical Sciences - through its Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute of Medica! Scierices, Bilaspur (CS). 6u."u 6hasjdas University - Through its ftegistrar, fiuru Shasidas Universit)/, Bilaspur (C6). 1st i. Anubhav Chandrokar, 1 year, M.B.B.S. Student, C.I.M.S., Silaspur (C&). cle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) ,r \ rti XI-HC—7S ;3n^r?CTfriN? aiTsii^rgTiiNi- / .'' d-cTi ^w^iif^ w^\wie, fsiditiy<' t~.. Wt-tW vh^W hj&. ^z-^/^-oofc a^wisRT (ii^fg^r) WiiWHf?^ an^r <*i«r<-i<fl^^wriff fye> ^re^ ^TsiRiHsii^r 14-6-2007 Shr-i P. biwakar, Sr. j^dvocate with Shri Kunal &as, counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S. t)eo, Soyt.jAdvocate for the State/respondents No.l & 2. Shri Manindra Shrival+ava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Devendra Peri'el. counsel for respondents No.^ & 4. Shri 'fishore Bhadur'i, |:ounsel for respondent No.5. Heard. Sy this writ petition |jnder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the p&titioner who ap^eared as unreserved Sainik class candidate in PMT Examination, 2006 he!<^ by respondent No.2. She wcs admitted in the first year MBBS course in dAAS, Bilaspur, sgsinst the payment seat of unreserved Sainik class (jandidate, has choilenqed the orders dcted 23-9-2006 (Annexure-P/!5| & 27-9-2006 (Anexure-P/16) Issued by the Director, AAedica! Educatic|i <& Dean, Chhcttisgarh Institute of Medical Sciencss, respectively, whe^reby the admission of the petitioner has been canceiied. Hence the psti^ioner prsyed for quashment of orders dort-ed 23-9-2006 & 27-9-2006 pcjssed by the bir-ector Medica! Educstion <& Dean, rh <W1 <hattisgarh Institute of /^iedica! Sciences and further pr-ayed that she be allowed to continue to oursije her studies. r ^ 'l"'..': XI-HC—78 MINdl Wqra? TEST •^WW-tf, WvS\WW, fsjdiy^ 'jof No. r^i^)^^ 3n^?f^ R-ii+ WV SIT^Tsb^icii •^' an^T 'V^K (Tpf^^Ef) 'S^ITW^to 311^1 irief facts ieadinq to fl she was s'-ccessful in the said e>| as unreserved Sdnik class candil however, one Paritosh Sonkar) challenging the adfflisslons in th that no reservation has been mt that writ petition this Courj- <^ l<n4ni ^w^ ^l^st ^RiR^R ^sirairaii^i ling of this writ petition are ~hat the petitioner appeared in PMT Exai^inatio:-! 2006 for first year MBBS course, [amination and uitimctely she was admitted |jate in CTMS against pQyment quota seat, filed a writ petition No.4788/2006, ^ first year AABBS course, on the ground kde for OBC Sainik closs candidote and in assed an order dated 20-9-2006 to the effect thot respondents No.4 ^ 5 therein are directed to reserve a secri- for OBC Sainik class candidate a Pursuant to that order, admission of the petitioner r; candidate and uitiwateiy when id to qive admission. the respondents after by cwscelting the zserved one seat for OBC Sainik c'ass io OBC Sainik ciass eligible candidate was found, the admission wos given ^o respondent No.5 herein as OBC no closs candidate. The contention of learned counse! for the petitioner is that when the petitioner was already admifte<| under the unreserved cctegory as Sainik cicsss candidate and no eligible cjandidate for OBC Sainik class was a'/ailabie in that case eyen after the Courlj-'s order the petitioner's admission ought to have been allowed to continue, As that seat was meant for Sainik class and petitioner belongs to that cla^s, as such, by cancelilno the petitioner's XI-tIC—78 3II^?[ ?iT W[<h ^TSTT 3TT^?T »i*l .-V - '%-•. Sowri '3^3! ^m^, •a-^ww, ^<ftwy. Nl*1dl **41* (^O ^ |M° < _'TM^-^/'I-O°^ •T-^ an^r I)SR? (ii«ify?<f) ¥R11W^fei sil^f admission, respondent No.5 coi^ belong to Sainik c'ass. Ouring the course of 4 made a submission that even If be gi'/en admission for the se4 decision of Supreme Couri" and ansther vs. Union of resoondent No.5 has already bel the circumstances, the appropri^ be directed to give admission t^ the session 2007-08, whi'ch is Court' rendered in the mctter d session. In view of the above, witl is directed that respondents sh^u the payment seat as unreserved With the aforesaid obsel dissosed of. L.C-Bhadoo Judge «t>i'<i?t41-i'wS'^^6 <.fa«ti< ^•aifiTiran^i ild not ha.ve. been admifted, as he does not 'guments, learned counse! for the part-ies Ipetitioner's petition is al!owed she could not ^sion 2006 ofter 30-9-2006 in view of the rencfered in the matter of Mridui D.har (rtinor) Ins|io and ofhers (2005) 2 SCC 65 and the 'Jpr, admitted against that seat. Therefore, in ipri^te course left is that respondents No.2 & 3 the petitioner against the payment seat in lerrnissible as per the decision of Supreme if i.e. the admission can be given in the next fi the consent of counsel for the parties, it !d give admission to 1-he petitioner against ISainik ciass in the session 2007-08. 'vations and directions the petition stands Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge