- (1.) The petitioner, aspiring to become a medical practitioner sought admission and offered her candidature to appeare in the Pre- medical test examination of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') in session 2008-09. She appeared in the examinations with Roll No. 249946 on 26.05.2008 and the results of the said examination were published on 1st June, 2008. The petitioner was not shown to have been successful in the examination and, therefore, she sought certain information from the University on 2nd June, 2008. She further moved applications on 28th June, 2008 and 21st June, 2008 and a reply was received on 7th July, 2008. The petitioner having not received appropriate information approached the Central Information Commission, New Delhi and the Central Information Commission, New Delhi passed an order on 23rd September, 2008 directing the University to provide the information as contained in the said order. Accordingly, vide letter dated 7th October, 2008 certain material was supplied to the petitioner and on the strength of such information the petitioner alleges that at least 15 questions had been correctly answered by her about which the key answers provided by the respondent-University were wrong. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to record that the parties are not at variance that the last admitted candidate in the MBBS course had a score of 93.75 and the last candidate to be admitted in BDS course had a score of 88. The score of the petitioner is 81. Broadly calculated and as urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University, if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that she has answered 9 questions more correctly over and above her score then she might be entitled for getting admission in the BDS course. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University states that this would require 7 marks to be added to her score for admission in the BDS course or 11.25 marks added to her score for getting admission in the MBBS course.
(2.) This fact has been stated at the outset in order to assess the submissions which had been advanced on behalf of the petitioner so as to claim entitlement for admission.
(3.) I have heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length joined by Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel, who concluded the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Sunita Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent-University, who has painstakingly evaluated the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of all the 15 questions about which facts have been disclosed in the writ petition, the rejoinder affidavit and the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner as well as in the counter affidavit and in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-University.;