SUNITA GANJA Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-38
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 06,1997

SUNITA GANJA Appellant
VERSUS
Himachal Pradesh Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANDHYA KABRA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)97 was selected for speciality in Microbiology which she had opted even at the time of original application inspite of the fact that the seat was reserved for the had area and the petitioner did not belong to such area. The contention of the petitioner is that in the examination notice issued on 10 -7 -1996, the names of the specialities in the reserved category were set out. Certain categories were not available to the GDO (general) candidates to which the petitioner belongs. When the seats were released from All India Quota and were being filled up those seats were offered to the persons who had exercised option for those specialities even at the time of original application on the basis of merit in that category. On that basis, the seats were allotted to respondents No, 4 and 5 in CWP No. 50/97 and respondents No. 4 to 6 in CWP No. 4/97. It should be mentioned that respondent No. 5 and 6 in CWP No. 4/97 are the same as respondents No 4 and 5 in CWP No. 50/94. The contention urged by the petitioners is that at the time when the allotment was made to respondents No. 4 to 6 in CWP No. 4/97 an opportunity should have been given to the persons who belong to GDO (general) category to exercise their option with regard to the specialities in which seats were available at the time by virtue of reliquishment from AH India Quota.
(2.)There is no rule in support of the petitioners contention, On the other hand the rule contemplates the exercise of option only once. Rule 5.2.2 in the prospectus sets out that the choices for any three courses have to be given. There is no provision for changing the choice at any time after the application ; nor is there any provision for giving an opportunity to exercise a fresh option to those candidates who have not been selected op have been selected for other specialities.
(3.)The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of examination a notice was issued and there was no chance for the petitioners knowing that seats would be available in some of the specialities, which are not reserved for GDO (general) to which category the petitioner belonged. There is no substance in this contention. It is not in dispute, on the material placed before us that even when the applications were filed by the candidates, the options were exercised and the specialities were chosen on the footing that there is likely hood of relinquishment of some seats from All India Quota, Respondents No. 4 to 6 have exercised their options even at the time of filing of applications for the respective specialities In which they have been allotted seats The forth respondent has been allotted seat in CWP No 4/97 in M, S. Otolaryngology while 5th and 6th respondents have been allotted seats in M. D. Paediatics, M. D. Radiology respectively. Those specialities have bean mentioned by them in their applications filed originally as their choice. It is on the basis of the option exercised at the time of application and also on the basis of the merit in the entrance examination that they have been selected and seats have been allotted to them. No grievance can be made by the petitioner to such a course adopted by the respondents,


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