Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that though she was entitled to be considered for admission to M.D. (Homoeopathy) three-year course, the university wrongfully deprived her of the opportunity.
(2.) The petitioner took the admission test. Her merit position was twenty- six. She was an open category candidate. According to the rules eight seats out of thirty available seats were reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. Four candidates belonging to those categories were successful and available for admission. They were given admission. Out of the remaining twenty-six seats two seats were reserved for BIMSTEC countries. The Government of India enjoyed the right to sponsor candidates against those two reserved seats. According to the notified rules, and the terms and conditions of the admission if the sponsored candidates were not confirmed by the central Government before the date of counseling, the two reserved seats were to be filled from the list of qualified candidates.
(3.) In the present case. the admitted position is that even at the date of counseling the central Government did not sponsor any candidate against the two seats reserved for BIMSTEC countries. The university took steps to give admission to the selected candidates. The candidates were admitted on April 13th, 2006. Classes have started on May 2nd, 2006. Since against the two seats reserved for BIMSTEC countries no candidate had been sponsored by the central Government before the date of counseling the petitioner contends that the university was under an obligation to consider her case for admission. Counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the notified rules, and the terms and conditions of admission, the petitioner was entitled to be considered.;