- (1.) Mr. Puneet Sardana through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order permitting migration of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to Dental College, Rohtak in preference to his claim being eligible for migration and higher in merit. The relief aforesaid has been asked for on the following facts :
(2.) Petitioner was pursuing his B.D.S. course at the North-Bengal Dental College, Siliguri (West Bengal) (hereinafter to be referred as the said college) which is stated to be duly approved by the Dental Council of India. He qualified his 1st Professional Examination of the B.D.S. course and got 391 marks out of 600 marks. As he was not enjoying good health, he applied to the respondent-University for migration from the said College to Dental College, Rohtak. The relevant ordinance dealing with migration to Dental College, Rohtak, reads thus :- "MIGRATION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE, ROHTAK :- Except when authorised by the academic council, migration of a candidate from a Medical College whose B.D.S. degree has not been recognised by the Medical Council of India, shall not be permitted. The application for migration must be made by the applicant within three months of declaration of Maharshi Dayanand University result. In case the request received after three months, the approval of the Medical Council of India be obtained. The applicant - (a) must have passed : (i) the first professional B.D.S. examination of the other University; (ii) the medical entrance examination or where the medical entrance examination is not held, the Pre-medical or its equivalent examination with at least 50% marks in the aggregate of the subjects of English, Chemistry (Organic and Inorganic), Physics and Biology; (b) must belong to the State of Haryana or to the State Government whose candidates are admitted on reserved seats, and are recommended by them for migration to the Medical College, Rohtak. (c) produces all such certificates and pays all fees as may be demanded by the Director-Principal of the College." He submitted all his documents required for the purpose of migration. Vide orders dated October 19, 1993, respondent-University permitted migration of seven persons to the respondent College. It is pleaded that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had been permitted migration from different colleges to the Dental College, Rohtak, despite the fact that they had obtained lesser marks than him. Whereas, petitioner had obtained 391 marks out of 600, respondents-Sumeet Malik, Ms. Monika Bhasin, Mr. Manoj Mittal and Mr. Tarun Kumar Bhutani had obtained 369, 372, 355 and 340 marks respectively out of 600. In the meeting held on February 20, 1991, respondent University had laid down that migration would be allowed strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the first professional examination and that too in the second year of B.D.S. course only. Copy of the said decision has been placed on the records as Annexure P- 3. The claim of petitioner was not being earlier considered at all as respondent-University and College were of the opinion that the North-Bengal Dental College, Siliguri (West Bengal), from which he wanted to be migrated, was not approved by the Dental Council of India. It is pleaded that the said College is approved by the Dental Council of India. The University later realising that it was recognised, intimated the petitioner that it had decided to consider his case for migration against vacant seats in B.D.S. II year at D.A V. Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar. He immediately addressed a letter to the respondent-University that before accepting the offer, he would like to be reassured that his application for migration to Dental College, Rohtak was considered. No reply was given to him and he was informed that he had been granted migration to D.A.V. Centenary Dental College at Yamunanagar. Petitioner immediately wrote another letter seeking reply to his earlier representation with regard to his claim for migration to Government Dental College, Rohtak. When no decision was taken in the matter, he approached this court for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
(3.) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of pleadings, referred to above, contends that the action of respondents in permitting migration to petitioner at Yaumnanagar in spite of his preference to be migrated to Dental College, Rohtak and preferring respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to be migrated to dental College, Rohtak, even though they had lesser marks than him,is not only against the guidelines formulated by the University itself but is also arbitrary as there were no special circumstances available for giving precedence to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and it was only a method of pick-and-choose which was adopted.;