- (1.) Nitasha Paul through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order migrating respondent Nos. 4 to 11 to the Dental College, Rohtak in preference to her claim for migration being higher in merit. The facts, on which the relief aforesaid rests, need a brief mention.
(2.) Petitioner got admission in K.L.E.S. Dental College and Hospital, Belgaum (Karnataka) and after passing her first professional year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery applied for migration to BDS IInd year at Dental College, Rohtak. Alongwith her application, she attached a certificate dated July 22, 1993 from the Principal Dental College & Hospital, Belgaum certifying that she was bonafide student of the college studying in IInd year BDS course for the year 1993-94. She also stated that the Dental College, Belgaum was recognised by the Dental Council of India and she had been admitted in the first year BDS on the basis of her 10+2 marks. Alongwith the application, she also annexed no objection certificate as also the Marks-sheet from the Karnataka University of the first year BDS examination and domicile certificate of Haryana. Her application was received in the office of Dental College, Rohtak at serial No. 4298 on August 4, 1993. There were in all 49 applicants who had prayed for their migration from different Dental Colleges throughout India to Dental College, Rohtak for the IInd year profession BDS Course. On scrutiny of the said 49 applications, the sub-committee consisting of the Dean of the College Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Chadha, Dr. B.R. Arora and Dr. V.K. Grover, found only 23 candidates to be eligible and obviously the cases of remaining 26 applicants were summarily rejected. In order of merit, the following candidates were recommended for their migration to Dental College, Rohtak by the sub- committee :- 1. Aradhna Mishra 2. Umand S. Nayyar, 3. Nitasha Paul, 4. Naveen Chhabra, 5. Puneet, 6. Puneet Batra, 7. Rashi Majithia. The marks obtained by each of the candidates in the first year profession BDS course were also mentioned against their names. It requires to be mentioned that there were in all eight seats and inasmuch as the 8th candidate had since already been admitted in the Dental College, Rohtak, even before the expiry of three months period, the names of only seven candidates were recommended by the Sub-Committee for their migration of Dental College, Rohtak. The Vice Chancellor of the M.D. University, Rohtak had earlier in point of time i.e. on February 20, 1991, constituted a committee for laying down the criteria for migration and the report submitted by the committee it is stated was accepted by the Vice Chancellor. The extract of the M.D. University Calendar, VII. I, 1987 page 109 insofar as the same is relevant with regard to rules governing migration to BDS course runs thus :- "The migration of a candidate from a Dental College, whose B.D.S. degree has not been recognised by the Dental Council of India, shall not be permitted. The application for migration must be made by the applicant within three months of the date of declaration of M.D.U., Rohtak result. In case the request is received after three months, the approval of the Dental Council of India be obtained. The applicant : (a) must have passed :- (i) the first professional BDS examination of 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 Govt. whose candidates are admitted to reserved seats, and are recommended by them for migration to the Medical College, Dental College, Rohtak. (c) Produce all such certificates and pays all fees as may be demanded by the Principal/Director of the College. A candidate must have valid reasons for migration. Migration cannot be claimed as a matter of right and may be refused by the University without assigning any reason. Migration will be allowed against the vacant seat, if any, out of the sanctioned strength in the year of admission. (d) the migrating student must join the new College within 30 days of the sanction of the migration by the University. Otherwise, his migration will automatically stand cancelled unless the period from sufficient cause, is extended by the Vice Chancellor." Even though the recommendation made by the sub-committee contained the name of petitioner at Serial No. 3 as per her merit and the report of the sub- committee as also the recommendation of petitioner were in consonance with the rules of migration as also the report of the committee that was constituted in the year 1991, she was not allowed migration and instead respondent No. 11, Mr. Munish Madan was granted migration. It was on the orders of the Vice Chancellor that Mr. Munish Madan was allowed migration even before the expiry of stipulated period of three months. The recommendations of the sub-committee were ignored and vide impugned order dated October 19, 1993 (Annexure P.4), the Vice Chancellor granted migration of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 against remaining seven seats excluding the seat of Mr. Munish Madan, who was granted migration on September 14, 1993. Petitioner has give a cooperative chart of the marks obtained by her and the respondents No. 4 to 10 in so far as it is known to her and the same are as follows :- "1. Nitasha Paul (Petitioner)416/660 2. Ms. Puneet (Respondent No. 4)409/600 3. Sumeet Malik (Respondent No. 6)369/600 4. Ms. Monika Bhasin (Respondent No. 7)372/600 5. Mr. Manoj Mittal (Respondent No. 9)355/600 6. Mr. Tarun Kumar (Respondent No. 10)340/600."
(3.) It is further pleaded that though one Pooja Batra was declared ineligible by the sub-committee yet she was allowed migration. On the facts aforesaid, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by ignoring the rightful claim of petitioner and giving precedence to those who did not deserve migration either on the basis of the rules or recommendations of the sub-committee, the respondents and in particular the Vice Chancellor have proceeded in the matter in a wholly arbitrary manner.;