S.R.Singh - (1.) PRESENT petition in directed against the order dated 1-10-1993, whereby the Director of Medical Education and Training U. P., Lucknow, rejected the petitioner's request for admission to Post-graduate degree course i.e. M.S./M.D. in Gyan. and obst. at S.N. Medical College, Agra against the vacant seat of 1992-session.
(2.) MATRIX of the fact is that the petitioner-Dr. Namita Agarwal-passed her M.B.B.S. examination from S.N. Medical College, Agra and thereafter, completed one year's internship between Dec. 1990 and Dec. 1991. She then appeared in the post-graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 1992, opting for Gyanecology and obstetrics as the first in order of preference at S. N. Medical College, Agra. She secured 1650 out of 3000 marks in the said examination, which fell far short of securing her admission to post-graduate degree course-M.S./M.D. in Gyan. and Obst. She however, qualified for and was admitted to Post-graduate diploma course in the aforesaid speciality on 8-7-1992. Indisputably, the session-1992 commenced on May 2, 1992. Subsequently, by her letter dated 16-4-1993, the petitioned applied for admission for transfer from Post-graduate diploma course to Post-graduate degree course in Gyanaecology and Obst. in the same college against a vacant seat pertaining to 1992-session. According to her, there were seven seats in Gyan. and Obst. at S. N. Medical College, Agra, out of which 75% were to be filled in by internal candidates and 25% by external ones i.e. the candidates selected through the entrance test conducted by All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. In her application dated 16-4-1993, the petitioner alleged that out of the seven seats in the speciality aforesaid one was of the All India Post Graduate Examination quota and the same was lying vacant as the last date of joining i.e. 7th Feb. 1992 had already passed off and none reported within time. It was also alleged that there being no candidate preceding her in the merit list, she could be permitted to join M.S. (Gyan. and Obst.) course against the vacant seat pertaining to 1992-session. The Principal of the College transmitted the petitioner's application to the Director, Medical Education and Training U. P. Lucknow for necessary action studded with the following remarks. " There is one 'All India Post Graduate quota' seat lying vacant in M.S. Obst. and Gyn. Course at this Institution for the batch of 1992. This seat is deemed to have been surrendered for the Institution candidates as after 7th Feb. 1993 or even earlier as per the latest communication from the Director General and Health Services New Delhi............Therefore, now this seat justifiably is open to be filled by internal candidate. Dr. Namita Agarwal D.G.O. at S.N. Medical College, Agra is claiming this seat of M. S. Obst. and Gyn. As per application, she reports herself to be the highest in order of merit in this context. I, therefore, recommend a necessary action to be taken at your level in this regard." Upon receipt of this recommendation, the Director Medical Education and Training, U. P. Lucknow, called for further comments from the Principal vide his letter dated 22-4-1993, in the light of the directions issued by Supreme Court vide order dated 10-7-91. A copy of the Supreme Court's order dated 10-7-91 passed in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 348-52/1985-Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Moti Lai Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the Supreme Court emphasised that "outer limit for both allotment and transfer shall be 7th Feb. of the year following the commencement of the session." The Principal of/the College vide his letter dated 31-5-1993 addressed to the Director, Medical Education and Training U. P., Lucknow reiterated his stand that after 7th Feb. 1992 the unfilled and vacant seat reserved for external candidates became available for [adjustment thereon of an internal candidate and that the petitioner could be adjusted against the said seat if she had preferential claim on merit over others. The Principal in his letter dated 31-5-93 also illustrated the instance of Dr. Piyush Prasad and others, who were, in the past, adjusted as Internal candidates against vacant external seats.
(3.) IT appears that while the matter was sub-judice before the Director, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which stood disposed of vide order dated Sept., 2, 1993 with a direction to the Director, Medical Education and Training, U. P. Lucknow to decide the petitioner's representation by, means of a speaking order within 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the aforesaid order. Upon being served with a copy of the order dated Sept. 2, 1993, the Director, Medical Education and Training U. P. Lucknow, traversed upon the matter in the light of the Supreme Court's decision on the point and in the ultimate analysis, turned down the petitioner's request to admit her to M.S. course in Gyn. and Obst. against the vacant seat of 1992-batch by means of the impugned order dated 1-10-1993. The reason assigned by the Director is that the admission of the candidates of 1992-session, had concluded in June 1992 itself and a period of more than a year ever since the commencement of the aforesaid session had already expired and further that, the admission of the petitioner against the vacant seat pertaining to 1992-session, would amount to an admission in 1993-sessions which admittedly commenced on May 2, 1993 and in which no seat was vacant in the speciality concerned i.e. in Gyn. and Obst. It has also been noticed by the Director that there were candidates in the waiting list of 1993-session. The Director Medical Education and Training U. P. Lucknow took the view relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 932 and Delhi High Court's (FB) decision in Sandhya Kabra v. University of Delhi, AIR 1993 Delhi 40 that in view of time schedule for admission to medical colleges, formulated by the Apex Court, there would neither be a justification nor would it be possible to admit the petitioner in the mid-1993-session against the vacant seat of 1992-batch. It is this decision of the Director which is the subject- matter of impugnment In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Const, of India.;