- (1.) Petitioner after having passed the M.B.B.S. examination in 1988, did one year of internship and thereafter got himself registered with the Medical Council. Vide advertisement dated 19-1-1990, Post-Graduate Medical Board, Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, respondent No. 2 invited applications from eligible candidates for admission test to fill up vacant seats of Post-Graduate Courses. Petitioner applied in pursuance of this advertisement and was qualified having secured 280 marks; but could not be admitted as his name was not included in the merit list. It appears that number of seats of the Post-Graduate Courses were not filled up by respondent No. 2 and are still lying vacant. Case of the petitioner is that after the admission was closed and when he came to know about these vacant seats, he applied for being admitted against these seats; but his application for admission against the existing vacant seats is not being considered. Petitioner as such, has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Post-Graduate Course against any of the available seats in Institute of Medical Science of Banaras Hindu University.
(2.) At the admission stage a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri R. P. Khare, Section Officer (Academic). Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and the petitioner in reply thereto has filed a rejoinder affidavit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
(3.) It is not disputed by the respondents that certain seats in Post-Graduate Courses are still lying vacant. The case of the respondents however, is that they want to fill up these vacant seats in the next session. It is further argued on behalf of the respondents that candidates having secured 292 marks have already been admitted and the petitioner having secured only 280 marks could not get admission in the regular course and it is not proper to admit him now against the vacant seats inasmuch as in the merit list there were certain candidates, who were given higher placing as they secured more than 280 marks. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that admission has to be made on the basis of merit only for which he has placed reliance on Sushil Kumar v. Principal I.T.I. (1982 UPLB & EC 509): (AIR 1981 All 194); Achchey Lal v. Vice-Chancellor (AIR 1985 All 1) and Dr. J. C. Pandey v. State (1984 UPLB & EC 756).;