- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, who has accepted notices on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 4.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that though she is domiciled in the State of U.P., and a copy of the domicile certificate is annexed as Annexure No.2 with the petition. However, as far as the graduation is concerned, the petitioner has obtained the decree from the B.A.M.S., Delhi. It has further been submitted that in terms of the counselling wherein she was permitted to participate. However, thereafter the petitioner been orally refused that he will not be granted any seat on account of the fact that he has obtained her bachelor's degree from out of State of U.P.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein similar controversy is engaging the attention of the Court which reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. By the aforesaid two writ petitions, five petitioners have approached this court, challenging the process of the admissions to the Post Graduate Course for Ayush. 3. Ministry of Ayush by its order dated 12-04-2019, provided the procedure for admissions in Ayush P.G. Courses for the year 2019. The said order provided 15% All India quota and 85% State quota. In furtherance thereof, the State Government issued a government order dated 13-08-2019. Under the heading, "Eligibility" Clause 1(Gha) of the said Government order provided that:- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]... 4. In furtherance thereof, a brochure was issued on 15-08-2019 by the Directorate of Ayush, which provided that:- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]... 5. Thereafter, a new brochure was issued on or around 30-08-2019, which provided that:- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]... Further, the counselling, which was to be held from 04-09-2019 was differed to 16-09-2019. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that under the first brochure, the process for admissions started on 15-08-2019. Applications and fees as per the said brochure were accepted. However, in mid-way, conditions for admissions were modified by a fresh brochure and only those persons, who graduated in Ayush Course from the State of U.P., are being permitted, whether they are domicle of State of U.P. or not. 7. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that words "Domicle" of State of U.P., as has been described by second brochure, is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it violates the word "Domicle" itself. The petitioners, who are domicle of the State of U.P. and had gone out of the State only for the purpose of their graduation, on return, by modification, are being denied rights of the domicle of the state of U.P. The petitioners have been throughout living in the State of U.P. and have done their entire schooling in the State of U.P. and are also registered with the Ayush Board in the State of U.P. and some of them are even, having their jobs with the Ayush Department of the State of U.P., therefore, keeping them out of the ambit of definition of domicle of the State of U.P., on the face of it, is arbitrary and illegal. 8. Reliance is placed by learned counsels for the petitioners on Judgment and order dated 01-04-2019 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8616(M/S) of 2019, Dr. Jitendra Gupta and ors Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Med. Education and Another, wherein this court, has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India(1984) 3 SCC, 654. 9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is delay in filing the writ petitions as the government order dated 13-08-2019 is now being challenged by present writ petitions itself. Learned counsels for the petitioners state that initially by first brochure, the petitioners were permitted to apply for admissions. However, it is by the brochure dated 30-08-2019, they have been denied the right to apply for admission, thus, without there being any delay, the writ petitions were filed on 02-09-2019 and 11-09-2019. In the given facts of the case, I find that there is no delay in filing these writ petitions. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submits that though a Short Counter Affidavit is filed today, however a detailed counter affidavit is required to be filed in the case. He prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing a Counter Affidavit. 11. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 12. List after expiry of aforesaid period. 13. Looking into the definition as provided and the purpose reflected from the order of the Central Government, it is provided that petitioners be permitted provisionally to participate in the counselling in 85% quota and the aforesaid admissions shall be subject to final orders passed by this court in these writ petitions. 14. Let a copy of this order be provided to learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges by today itself." ;