RAHUL MITTAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-65
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
April 18,2022
Rahul Mittal
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
EAST END DWELLING CO. LTD. VS. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]STATE OF BOMBAY VS. PANDURANG VINAYAK [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VS. S TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAGADGURU KARI BASAVA RAJENDRASWAMI OF GOVIMUTT VS. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJA SHATRUNJI VS. MOHAMMAD AZMAT AZIM KHAN [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH DEAD VS. DHAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
BOUCHER PIERRE ANDRE VS. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL TIHAR NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER DASS VS. RAM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION VS. MAC LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHLER [REFERRED TO]
NELSON MOTIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED IQBAL MADAR SHEIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PARAYANKANDIYAL ERAVATH KANAPRAVAN KALLIANI AMMA VS. K DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MANOREY MANOHAR VS. BOARD OF REVENUE UP [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
S J S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES P LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SADAN K BORMAL [REFERRED TO]
MALLESHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
MUNDRI LAL VS. SUSHILA RANI [REFERRED TO]
VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS B V VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SUJOYPAUL, J. -
(1.)The controversy revolves around the interpretation of Rule 11 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Post Graduate Course Admission Rules (Degree/Diploma) 2014
(hereinafter called as "Admission Rules").
(2.)Before dealing with the relevant Rule namely Rule 11, it is apposite to mention the admitted facts between the parties. Petitioner took admission in Post Graduate Diploma Course in Gajra Raja Government Medical College, Gwalior on 1/7/2014. The petitioner participated in the final examination in December, 2014. Petitioner could not clear the main examination held in 2016. He took part in the supplementary examination and result was declared on 3/3/2017 (Annexure P/4).
(3.)Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 11 of the Admission Rules, The Dean, Medical College was required to provide a list of successful post graduate candidates to the Commissioner of Health Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner, in turn was required to issue appointment orders to such successful candidates within three months after declaration of the result. It is urged that the results were declared on 3/3/2017 but till date, no appointment order has been issued to the petitioner. Resultantly, in view of the clear language of Rule 11 aforesaid, the bond conditions stand obliterated automatically. Thus, petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed.
(2.)Before dealing with the relevant Rule namely Rule 11, it is apposite to mention the admitted facts between the parties. Petitioner took admission in Post Graduate Diploma Course in Gajra Raja Government Medical College, Gwalior on 1/7/2014. The petitioner participated in the final examination in December, 2014. Petitioner could not clear the main examination held in 2016. He took part in the supplementary examination and result was declared on 3/3/2017 (Annexure P/4).
(3.)Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 11 of the Admission Rules, The Dean, Medical College was required to provide a list of successful post graduate candidates to the Commissioner of Health Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner, in turn was required to issue appointment orders to such successful candidates within three months after declaration of the result. It is urged that the results were declared on 3/3/2017 but till date, no appointment order has been issued to the petitioner. Resultantly, in view of the clear language of Rule 11 aforesaid, the bond conditions stand obliterated automatically. Thus, petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.