Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 02.07.2013
P.S. PRIYA..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Adv. for R-1&3 Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner before this Court passed out her MBBS examination from the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner appeared in the All India Examination conducted by the respondent no.2- National Board of Examinations (NBE) for admission to Post Graduate medical seats. The result of the petitioner was declared by the respondent no.2 and down-loaded by the petitioner from its website on
8.6.2013. In the said result, the States/ UT of graduation of the petitioner has been shown as Andhra Pradesh, her domicile as adopted by her is shown as Kerala, her
All India rank has been shown as 794 and her percentile as 99.1165. There are two
2013:DHC:3060 State ranks given to the petitioner- one for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other for the State of Kerala. The rank of the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh was 99 and in Kerala it was 93. The petitioner was declared qualified in the said examination.
2. Fifty percent of the Post-Graduate seats in the Government Medical Colleges fell under All India Pool whereas the remaining 50% of such seats fall in State Pool. As far as private medical colleges are concerned, 50% of their seats fall in State Pool and the remaining 50% in the Institute Pool. 50% seats falling in All India Pool are to be filed on All India level, on the basis of merit in the examination conducted by the respondent no.2. The remaining 50% seats in Government medical colleges are to be filled at State level, but again as per merit position in the examination conducted by respondent no.2. Even 50% seats in private medical colleges falling in Institute Pool are to be filled up as per merit in the said examination.
3. The respondent no.2 prepared a list of candidates eligible to take part in All India PG Quota (MD/MG/PG, Diploma), 2013. The name of the petitioner does not appear in the said list. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her percentile was 99.1165 and she had 794th position in All India ranking, her name was not included in the list for counselling for the purpose of admission to All India PG Quota, 2013, whereas the candidates who had secured much lower percentile were included in the said list. The petitioner is accordingly seeking quashing of the said list and a direction to the respondents to allow her to participate in the counselling.
4. The petition has been contested by the respondents. The main contention of the respondents is that in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 8.11.2011 in IA No.27 in Writ Petition (C) Nos.348-352 of 1985 Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others versus Motilal Nehru Medical College and ors., the petitioner, having passed MBBS from the State of Andhra Pradesh is not eligible to be admitted under All India Quota and that is why her name has not been included in the list of candidates called for the purpose of counselling.
5. Vide order dated 21.7.1986 passed in Writ Petition Nos.348-352/1985, the Supreme Court framed a scheme for admission to Under-Graduate and Post Graduate Medical Courses. Paragraph 7 of the said Scheme, which is reproduced in the order of the Supreme Court dated 8.11.2011, reads as under:
7. It would thus be seen from the above-referred order of the Supreme Court that the “students belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh” are not eligible to participate in the counselling for admission against All India Seats. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be said to be a “student belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh” or not. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a person cannot be said to be a student of Andhra Pradesh merely on account of his having passed MBBS Examination from an institution situated in that State and it is only a student who has not only passed MBBS from Andhra Pradesh, but also has a domicile of that State, who can be considered to be a student belonging to Andhra Pradesh. In my view, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Domicile has absolutely no role to play as far as admission to such course is concerned. Student means a person following a course of study and instructions at a University, College or School etc. The use of the expression „student‟ in the order of the Supreme Court dated 8.11.2011 is a clear indication that it is the place from which the person concerned passes his/her MBBS examination which alone is relevant for deciding whether he is a student from that State or not. A person who sits and passes out MBBS from Andhra Pradesh would certainly be a student belonging to Andhra Pradesh irrespective of the place of his/her domicile. Not only does this interpretation logically arise from the use of the expression „student‟ in the order of the Supreme Court, this has also been the understanding of the respondents. The examination for the year 2012 was conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences and in the prospectus it was clearly stated that students having passed their MBBS from any institution in Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir shall not be eligible to participate in the All India Entrance Examination for selection of candidates against such seats. Though, it is not so stated in the prospectus for the examination conducted by the respondent no.2 for the year 2013, this, according to respondent no.2 has always been its understanding. In its additional affidavit, respondent no.2 has clearly stated that the name of the petitioner or any other similar candidate who had passed his/her graduation (MBBS) either from Andhra Pradesh or Jammu and Kashmir, irrespective of their place of residence or domicile, has been excluded from the main result i.e. All India Rank. Thus, not only the petitioner but all other candidates who passed out MBBS from Andhra Pradesh or Jammu and Kashmir have been excluded while preparing the list of candidates eligible to appear for the counselling for admission under All India quota. As far as respondent no.3 is concerned, it was clearly stated in the prospectus for the year 2012 that the students having passed out their examination from any institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir shall not be eligible to participate in the All India Competitive Entrance Examination for selection of candidates against All India Quota Seats. Though, the prospectus for the year 2013 has not been filed, the learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 maintains that the same was the position and the information in this regard has always been available on their website.
8. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the petitioner having passed MBBS from the State of Andhra Pradesh which does not contribute any seat towards All India Quota is not eligible for admission under the said quota and consequently her name has rightly been excluded while preparing list of candidates eligible for appearing for the counselling to fill up the seats under the said quota.
9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had disclosed, while submitting her application, that she had passed MBBS from Andhra Pradesh, she was declared qualified and her result was duly declared. This, to my mind, is of no consequence because the examination conducted by the respondent is meant to full up not only the All India Quota but also the seats falling under the State Quota as well as Institutes Quota and despite her not being eligible to be considered against All India Quota, the petitioner continues to be eligible under the State Quota of Andhra Pradesh as well as in Kerala if it permits admission against State Quota on the basis of domicile.
10. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master. V.K. JAIN, J JULY 02, 2013