T. APARNA Vs. STATE OF C.G
LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on December 19,2003

T. Aparna Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF C.G. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L.C.BHADOO,J. - (1.)By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Petitioner has challenged the decision of the Respondent No. 2 in not admitting the Petitioner in the first year Physiotherapy Course 2003-2004 in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur.
(2.)The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is resident of Bilaspur. She passed her 12th examination in the year 2002-2003 with 72% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology which are recognized for the purpose of admission of first year Physiotherapy Course. The copy of the mark-sheet is annexed as Annexure/P-1. The Respondents vide newspaper item (Anexure P.2) invited applications of the desirous candidates seeking admission to the aforesaid Physiotherapy Course for the year 2003-2004. Accordingly, Petitioner applied, for the admission to the said course within time. Petitioner was called for counseling on 11-8-2003 and Petitioner appeared in the said counseling. However, Petitioner was not selected and thereafter the second counseling was conducted on 28-8-2003 and notice of the same was sent to the Petitioner, but that was received by the Petitioner on 5-9-2003 by which date the counseling was already over. However, in that counseling no body was selected and Respondents decided to conduct the subsequent counseling on 1-9-2003 for which Respondents invited three students telegraphically and among, those, Respondent No. 3 was one of the candidates. Unfortunately, the Petitioner was not informed. When the Petitioner came to know about that the Petitioner made a representation dated 15-9-2003 (Annexure P/7). Her representation was not decided and neither the Petitioner was given admission. Even though the Respondent No. 3 is having less marks than the Petitioner, she was admitted in the Course. This has happened on account of faulty procedure adopted by the Respondents in sending communication to the candidates. It has been prayed that writ of cartibrari be issued for quashing the decision whatever taken by the Respondents admitting the Respondent No. 3 in place of the Petitioner for the seat available to the Petitioner on the basis of comparative academic merit and Respondent No. 3 be directed immediately to admit the Petitioner on the basis of academic merit in the first year of Physiotherapy Course. Return has been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 in which it has been mentioned that the refusal to admit the Petitioner in Physiotherapy Course for the year 2003-2004 is absolutely in accordance with law and as such there is no illegality and irregularity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner was duly noticed on the second counseling held on 11-8-2003 by under Certificate of Posting and secondly for the counseling held on 28-8-2003. In the first counseling the Petitioner appeared pursuant to the call letter issued by the College. Copy of the U.P.C. dated 7-8-2003 sent to the proposed candidates for second counseling is filed as Annexure R. 1. In the third counseling also call letter was issued to the Petitioner by UPC on 21st August, 2003. In the second counseling the Petitioner was not selected being not qualified for the same and in third counseling the Petitioner had not turned up. The allegations made in para 5.3 are denied. Ultimately, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
(3.)I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.