WP/42482/2002 of JANANI S.KARAYALAR .R Vs THE CHAIRMAN on 26 December 2002

1. Hemavathy R. BC 295.53

2. Suvarna S. OC 295.30

3. Poorna J. Visa BC 294.73

4. Sulthana Dhilras J. BC 294.54

5. Janani S. BC 294.18

6. Aravindh P. BC 292.76

7. Rekha C. BC 292.59

8. Janani S. Karayalar P. BC 292.44

The name of the petitioner is shown as Serial No.8.

3. Petitioner further states that the cut off marks for admission in the open category for the OC was 295.20 and for BC 293.80.Therefore, according to the petitioner, among the names of eight candidatesshown above, upto Serial No.5, are entitled to be selected under the generalcategory and therefore the three vacancies out of the Freedom Fighters Quotamust have been allotted to Serial Nos.6,7 and 8. However, though candidatesbearing Serial Nos.6 and 7 were called for counselling course and givenadmission, the petitioner herein who is the eighth candidate, has not beenselected as against the Freedom Fighters Quota. Hence the above writpetition.

4. In the counter filed by the respondent while the ranking position as stated above is admitted, it is contended thatthe Selection Committee conducted a counselling on 27.9.2002 for admissioninto general category. S.Janani viz., Serial No.5 was called for counselling.However, she did not attend the counselling which was held on 27.9.20 02.Consequently, that seat available under BC category in KAP Viswanathan MedicalCollege, was filled up by another eligible candidate from backward classcommunity category instead of S.Janani. Subsequently, S.Janani had to beaccommodated in the Freedom Fighters Quota and therefore inclusive of S.Jananiand Serial Nos.6 and 7, they were accommodated as against Freedom FightersCategory. Therefore with the filling up of all the three vacancies, the claimof the petitioner could not be entertained. In view of the aforesaidcircumstances, the Selection Committee is not in a position to allot her aseat. There is no basis for the allegation that she was denied admission dueto casual approach and recalcitrant attitude of the respondents.

5. I have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that there was no irregularity in the filling up of the vacancies as againstFreedom Fighters Quota and that it was only because of the circumstance thatS. Janani (Serial No.5) did not attend the Counselling Course for the generalcategory for which she was called for. Later, she being the top most personin the Freedom Fighters Category, she had to be accommodated.

7. I have considered the submissions of the

learned Special Government Pleader. It is needless to point out that innormal course, the petitioner should have been admitted after accommodatingSerial Nos.1 to 5 in the general category. But in view of the extraordinarycircumstance of Serial No.5 not attending the Counselling Course for thegeneral merit category, it is stated that she had been accommodated as againstthe Freedom Fighters Category. I am inclined to hold that the petitioner whoshould have been accommodated, in the normal course cannot be deprived of herseat merely due to the default on the part of S.Janani, Serial No.5. It is not known as to under what circumstances, the said individual was accommodatedas against Freedom Fighters Quota when she had failed to appear for theCounselling Course for the general category, for which she was eligible andwas called upon to attend. If the said process as stated above is permitted,it would only lead to undesirable manipulation in order to accommodate abackward class candidate in the general category who will not be entitled toin the normal course and with the result denying the lawful claims of theindividuals like the petitioner, who is entitled to the seat under the specialcategory. By no stretch of imagination, can the petitioner be blamed forherself now being kept out of admission in the professional course. SerialNo.5 has no justifiable right to refuse to appear for the counselling coursefor the general category for which she has been called, and to insist that sheshould be selected under Freedom Fighters Category. The process of admissionis not in her choice, thereby deprive the rights of an individual like thepetitioner. Petitioner cannot be penalised for the said conduct of SerialNo.5 which ought not to have been permitted.

8. Therefore, with the result, I am

inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and therespondents are directed to accommodate her as against the quota for thechildren of Freedom Fighters.9. Consequently, there will also be adirection to the Medical Council of India to take into account theextraordinary circumstances under which the petitioner herein is entitled tobe declared as being eligible to be admitted in the MBBS Course and theMedical Council of India is directed to grant approval for admitting her, ifadmitting her is likely to result in increase in the number of permittedseats. The respondents shall comply with the above order within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. The writ petition is ordered subject tothe above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP 62690 of 2002is closed.

Index : Yes.Internet: Yes.

svn

To

1. The Chairman,Selection Committee,Directorate of Medical Education,No.162, E.V.R. High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

2. The Director of Medical Education,No.162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

3. The Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu,Health Department,Fort St. George,Chennai-9.

4. Medical Council of India,New Delhi.