- (1.) Petitioner Ruchi Rajpurohit has approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the respondent University) whereby she has been denied admission in the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course. Additionally, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Regulation 2(1)(iii) of the Prospectus of the respondent University for the PMET 2006. Directions have also been sought against the respondent University to give admission to the petitioner in the aforesaid BDS course.
(2.) At the outset, it may be relevant to notice here that on September 15, 2006 when this case had come up for motion hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner had given up the challenge made by the petitioner to the vires of Regulation 2(1)(iii). The claim of the petitioner was based entirely upon the factual situation as well as on Regulation 2(1)(iv) of the Regulations.
(3.) Certain essential facts may be noticed as follows : The petitioner passed her secondary school examination from Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 2003. Thereafter the petitioner appeared for her 10+2 examination conducted by CBSE in March/April 2006. The petitioner, however, failed to clear the Chemistry subject bearing subject code No. 043 and was placed in compartment in the aforesaid +2 examination in the result declared on May 23, 2006. Desirous of seeking admission to BDS course, the petitioner submitted an application form for PMET 2006 prior to the last date of submission of the applications. The entrance test was conducted on July 2, 2006. In the aforesaid entrance test, the petitioner secured an overall rank of 1474 and rank No. 1193 in general merit list for admission in MBBS/BDS/ BAMS/BHMS courses. The petitioner in the meantime appeared in the compartment/supplementary examination conducted by CBSE and when the result of the aforesaid supplementary examination was declared on August 7, 2006, the petitioner was declared to have passed the Chemistry subject also. However, the respondent University commenced with the process of admissions to the BDS course and for that purpose, held the first counselling on August 3, 2006. The petitioner maintains that the counselling closed at rank No. 1190, whereas, the rank of the petitioner was 1193. However, the second counselling was scheduled for September 7, 2006. The petitioner also participated in the said counselling on the aforesaid date and claims to have duly furnished the certificate of 10+2 dated August 7, 2006, wherein the petitioner was declared to have passed all the subjects of 10+2 examination. However, the petitioner was not granted admission on account of the fact that she had not passed her 10+2 in the annual examination 2006 and as such was not eligible. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court.;