- (1.)THE first petitioner as well as the second petitioner are qualified Ayurved Medical Practitioners. They have B. A. M. S. degree which enable them to practice in Ayurved. Both the petitioners belong to non-teaching in service candidates. For the purposes of admission to the course of M. D. /m. S. (Ayurved) for the year 2001-2002, the advertisement was issued on 18th February, 2002. The petitioners herein applied for admission to M. D. /m. S. (Ayurved) Courses in service candidates. The last date for submission of forms was 7th March, 2002. As per the admission Rules, 5% seats were reserved for non-teaching in service candidates. The qualification/eligibility for admission to M. D/m. S. (Ayurved) in respect of in service non-teaching candidates was also provided. The merit list for non-teaching staff for admission to post-graduate Ayurved course for the year 2001-2002 was published wherein first petitioner was at Serial No. 8, second petitioner was at Serial No. 18, the respondent No. 3 was at Serial No. 3 and respondent No. 4 was at Serial No. 9 in the merit list. Since the first petitioner did not give the subjects of his choice, the candidate next to him i. e. respondent No. 4 was selected. In the merit list the candidates at Serial Nos. 11 and 12 also did not give choice of their subjects and the next candidate being the respondent No. 3 at Serial No. 13 in the merit list, she was granted admission. The petitioner by means of this writ petition seek directions to first and second respondents to reconduct the admission for non-teaching in service candidates for the M. D. /m. S. (Ayurved) for the educational year 2001-2002 and further direction to them to give admission to them in M. D. /m. S. course.
(2.)IN response to the writ petition, initially affidavit in reply was filed on 2nd April, 2002 through Dr. A. B. Dharmadhikari, Dean, R. A. Podar Medical College (Ayurved), Worli, Mumbai. The case is set up by the respondents in the said affidavit that although there was no column given separately for choice of subject/s it was expected of the candidate to mention their choice under Rule 2 note. According to Rule 2 note, as per the case set up by respondents, the candidate was required to give three choices. The petitioners did not submit their choices nor they raised, any objections between the period from 18th March, 2002 to 21st March, 2002 and accordingly they could not be given admission. It is submitted by the respondents that complete process of admission is over and therefore writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed another affidavit in reply through Dr. K. R. Kohli, Dean, R. A. Podar Ayurved Medical College, Worli, Mumbai. It is reiterated in the said affidavit that petitioners had not given their choices for subjects and accordingly their forms were liable to be rejected. As regards respondent No. 3, it is submitted that she was found eligible in final merit list and her form was complete in all respects. In so far as respondent No. 4 was concerned, it is submitted that initially name of respondent No. 4 was not in the final merit list but at the time of interview she pointed out that she had applied for seat in the non-teaching Medical Officer category and not from the student category and after verification and detailed scrutiny, the grievance Committee recommended to replace her name from student category to non-teaching Medical Officer category and place her name in the final merit list. Both, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, according to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, got their seats due to their merit. One more affidavit in reply was filed by K. R. Kohli, Dean, R. A. Podar Ayurved Medical College, Worli, Mumbai. It is stated therein that the admission Rules of the concerned year provided that Medical Officers attached to Ayurved Colleges can opt for any of the four clinical subjects and exercising this choice was mandatory as per the Rules. These four subjects have been mentioned in the Rules because they are clinical subjects having a bearing on the working of the Medical Officers working in the field. The choice is important because they could decide whether they wanted to go for Surgery, Gynecology, E. N. T. Ophthalmology or Medicine. The first petitioner as well as the second petitioner did not give their option and their forms were accordingly rejected. It is submitted that even if it be assumed that admission form of petitioner No. 2 was valid, in the merit list her name finds place at Serial No. 11 and she cannot get admission on the basis of merit for open category as only six seats were available in open category for non-teaching Medical Officers. As regards first petitioner, in the reply affidavit of one Dr. G. Y. Khati, Professor, R. A. Podar Medical Officer, Worli, Mumbai filed today, it is averred that he can be adjusted against one seat in Dravyaguna (Pharmacology) at R. A. Podar Medical College (Ayurved), Mumbai which has fallen vacant.
(3.)WE have heard Mr. A. V. Anturkar, learned Counsel for petitioners, at quite some length and also considered the relevant Rules and the various affidavits.