AMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-17
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
August 26,2020
AMAN KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE CHANDIGARH VS. SANJAY GULATI:DHARMINDER KUMAR SINGHAL:CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]MUNINDRA KUMAR VI VEK KUMAR RAVINDER SINGH DHAKA VS. RAJIVGOVIL:VIVEKAGGGARWAL:RAJEEVGOVIL [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI VS. SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI MISHRA VS. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S VINODH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAY MALIK VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
AMLAN JYOTI BOROOAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
K A NAGAMANI VS. INDIAN AIRLINES [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
INDU GUPTA VS. DIRECTOR SPORTS PUNJAB CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHAH VS. ANIL JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR SHAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SONIA KAYASTHA VS. STATE OF H.P. [REFERRED TO]
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. JASMINE KAUR [REFERRED TO]
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI VS. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND ANOTHER; S ANANDHI AND OTHERS VS. K SIVASUBRAMANIYAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. C GIRIJA & ORS [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioner is an aspirant to Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) Course. He qualified NEET-MDS-2020 test held on 20.12.2019 and within the period prescribed under the prospectus issued thereafter by the respondents, applied for admission to MDS Course academic session 2020- 23. Petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Castes category and applied as such, for admission only in Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College, Shimla (hereinafter in short as HPGDC), remained unsuccessful in first round of counselling. He could not secure MDS seat even in second round of counselling, hence, feeling aggrieved instant petition has been preferred.
(2.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
(3.)Two short grounds on which this writ petition has been preferred are:-
3(a) MDS seat falling against roster point No.14 during second round of counselling had to be filled up from a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The seat, however, has been wrongly alloted to respondent No.5 (Dr. Nidhi Chandel) belonging to General Category.
3(b) Clause 5.6 of the prospectus is unconstitutional.
;
(2.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
(3.)Two short grounds on which this writ petition has been preferred are:-
3(a) MDS seat falling against roster point No.14 during second round of counselling had to be filled up from a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The seat, however, has been wrongly alloted to respondent No.5 (Dr. Nidhi Chandel) belonging to General Category.
3(b) Clause 5.6 of the prospectus is unconstitutional.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.