- (1.) The appellant herein, after the counselling, was given admission in MD (Anesthesia), whereas, respondent No. 4 was admitted to pursue MD (Medicine). On the plea that the appellant was higher in merit and should have been offered MD (Medicine), instead of respondent No. 4, appellant filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the admission of respondent No. 4 in MD (Medicine) and further seeking mandamus that he be given admission in MD (Medicine). The facts and circumstances under which the appellant was given admission in MD (Anesthesia) even when he was higher in merit are stated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement in detail, which are as under:- "I am not impressed by Mr. Sirohi's argument that on 31.05.2011 the seat shown was an NRI seat and not an NRI leftover seat. The submission is contrary to record and affidavits filed before this Court in the present petition. I have no doubt that the petitioner has played games with litigation. He had filed CWP No.14221 of 2011 against Sri Guru Ram Dass Medical College & Hospital, Amritsar (the present petition is against Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana) for similar relief which he conveniently withdrew after the enquiry was marked by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2011. This Court had then prima facie found violation of Clause 37 (c) of Government Notification dated 10.01.2011 may be for extraneous reasons. An enquiry Committee was constituted under orders of this Court to enquire into the fairness of the admission procedure adopted by the private colleges particularly in relation to the issues raised in this case as well as in the connected case i.e. CWP No.14221 of 2011 and submit its report to the Court. The enquiry report has been placed on record of this case. Enquiry report run into 33 pages together with annexures and has been placed on the record of this case and perused with the assistance of the learned counsel. Mr. Sirohi has filed objections to the report. Mr. Sirohi submits that the report is wanting and there is no finding in it about the admission of respondent no.4 against the seat of M.D. (Medicine). A look at the enquiry report does not reveal that extraneous considerations were at play or that there was something of a scam in the admission process. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is a fence sitter adopting the policy of convenience. Had he given the self undertaking at the time of second counselling I have no doubt that he may have secured admission to M.D. (Medicine) but he gave that up on his own volition and peril. He can make no grievance of it any longer. In any case, he is well into M.D. (Anesthesia) for one year and it is too late to shuffle people around like a pack of cards. The petitioner has not filed any replication to rebut the averments made by the University in its written statement and, therefore, I believe every word that the University says in support of the ''Self undertaking''. The respondents have explained how the vacancy occurred. One Dr. Anurag Arora left M.D. (Medicine) NRI quota to take M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) by choice also under NRI quota. The seat that went to the 4th respondent was that unfilled NRI seat."
(2.) In view of the aforesaid position disclosed in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the respondents. It is moreso, when 1 1/2 years have already passed during which period respondent No. 4 is pursuing the Course of MD (Medicine) and the appellant as MD (Anesthesia). It may not be proper at this stage to replace respondent No. 4 from MD (Medicine) Course and put the appellant in that Course.
(3.) Dismissed.;