M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THIS review petition has been filed against the order dated 20.7.2011, whereby, writ petition was disposed of with certain directions/observations. The appeal against the said order was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition as certain facts could not be placed before this court. It is apart from the fact that petitioner had undertaken the course for one year and three months by the aforesaid time. In view of the liberty given by the Division Bench, review petition has been preferred. Brief facts of the case -
(2.) THIS case pertains to admission in DM (Cardiology) course for the academic year 2010. Total 13 seats in the discipline of DM (Cardiology) were advertised with 30% reservation for in -service candidates. If 30% reservation is applied on 13 seats, it comes to 3.9 seats and if it is rounded off, comes to 4 seats. As against the aforesaid, only 3 seats were kept for in -service candidates due to wrongful fixing of roster point. It was not in dispute that if 4 seats would have been kept for in -service candidates, petitioner was to get admission as per her merit. The petitioner preferred a writ petition to challenge the action of the respondents and co -ordinate Bench of this court had passed an interim order for admission of the petitioner. She was given admission and thereupon completed the course in pursuance to the interim order. The writ petition was, in the meanwhile, decided by the court followed by the special appeal. This court found discrepancy in the roster point depriving the petitioner to get admission as per the quota meant for in -service candidate and the merit of the petitioner. To balance the equities, a direction was given to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for approval of additional seat for the session 2010 -11, while disposing of the writ petition. The observation aforesaid was not accepted by the MCI thus petitioner preferred an appeal and the Division Bench, finding that petitioner has already undergone course for 1 year and 3 months and considering additional facts, asked to prefer the review petition and, for which, liberty was given. Accordingly, this review petition has been preferred.
(3.) THE review petitioner, present in person, submitted that when finding regarding discrepancy in roster point was favourable to the petitioner then petitioner's admission should have been maintained while removing a candidate from the open category. This court should review its order accordingly. In the alternative, one seat should be adjusted in the next year by maintaining admission of the petitioner.;