AMAN DEEP JASWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 03,2006

Aman Deep Jaswal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ARCHANA CHOUHAN PUNDIR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
TANYA GILL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA KUMARI, D/O RAVINDRA PRASAD VS. DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PATNA AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-260] [REFERRED]
RICHA KAUSHIK D/O SH BHUPINDER KAUSHIK VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-12-100] [REFERRED]
DR ANKITA CHODHARY VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDERPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
AMITA AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VS. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-239] [REFERRED TO]
HARNEET SINGH KHURANA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
PANJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER VS. PALLAVI MAHAJAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-310] [REFERRED]
ASHA VS. B D SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
ARSHDEEP SINGH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-117] [REFERRED TO]
SAISHREE SOORI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-353] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNY K GUPTA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-133] [REFERRED TO]
MERAJUL HOQUE VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHIR KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
ADHISHREE, D/O ANIL KUMAR TIWARI VS. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2017-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANEESHA SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
JIGYASA TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
PARUL KODAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHU DUBEY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHINU SALUJA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-9-152] [REFERRED]
ALISHA ARORA VS. BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, FARIDKOT (PB ) AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-481] [REFERRED]
NIHARIKA VS. BABA FARID UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, FARIDKOT AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-488] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the writ petitioner Aman Deep Jaswal was meritorious and was entitled to be admitted in Government Medical College, Patiala against the course of her option, namely, MD Anaesthesia. She could not, however, be granted relief in view of the session having already commenced. The relief was denied on the ground that if allowed, it would amount to mid-session admission which was not permissible. At the same time, the High Court cancelled the admission in the aforesaid course granted to respondent Dr. Radhika Dhawan. Further, concluding that the Selection Committee of the respondent State had committed default in ignoring the rightful claim of the writ petitioner, the State was burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) by further directing that half of the amount would be recoverable from the Chairman/Members of the Selection Committee for ignoring the rightful claimant and for arbitrarily exercising the power vested in them and the remaining amount from the State. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent Dr. Radhika Dhawan whose admission was cancelled, have challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court.
(3.)It is not in dispute that the appellant Aman Deep Jaswal was much higher in rank in the selection and had also opted for MD Anaesthesia as one of the options. There could be no valid reason for denying her admission simply because of the word "any" written by her as third preference. Her first preference was MD Gynaecology and the next was MD Anaesthesia but in the second counselling her first option was MD Anaesthesia. The same could not be denied for the use of the word "any" when it is not disputed that she was more meritorious than Dr. Radhika Dhawan. The High Court was, however, right, despite these facts, in denying admission being granted to her during mid-session.


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