WP/27467/2005 of Dr.Vangala Chidananda Reddy, Vs The N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Examination conducted by the 1[st]respondent-University, for the purpose of admission into Post GraduateMedical Degree/Diploma Courses, for the academic year 2005-06. After theresults were announced, the petitioner was selected for admission into theCourse of Diploma in Clinical Pathology. On account of the Judgment of thisCourt setting aside the existing Rules of admissions, the Government ofAndhra Pradesh, 2[nd] respondent herein, issued a fresh set of admission rules.In the selections undertaken on the basis of new set of admission rules, thepetitioner was allotted to the same Course, into which he was admitted earlier.Accordingly, he was issued a letter of allotment, for the second time, on31.05.2005. The petitioner is studying the said Course.

The petitioner states that the in the Course of M.D.Pathology in the 4[th]respondent College, out of two seats, only one candidate had joined and theother seat is vacant. He claims to have made repeated requests to respondents1 and 2 for consideration of his case against the vacant seat in M.D.PathologyCourse. Complaining that his requests were not acceded to, he seeks a Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting thesecond counselling, in relation to the vacant seat in M.D.Pathology Course inthe 4[th] respondent-College.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleaderfor Medical, Health and Family Welfare, and the learned Standing Counsel forrespondents 1,3 and 4.

The University undertaken the selection process, on the basis of set ofadmission rules framed by the 2[nd] respondent. In the first round of selectionsheld between 25[th] and 28[th] April 2005, the petitioner was selected against aseat in the Course of Diploma in Clinical Pathology in the 4[th] respondent-College. In a batch of Writ Petitions, the rules of admissions were challengedand they were set aside. That necessitated the framing of new set of admissionrules by the 2[nd] respondent. In the selections undertaken on the basis of thenew set of admission rules also, the petitioner came to be selected against aseat in the same Course. To that extent, the petitioner did not have anygrievance.

The Supreme Court directed the Medical Council of India to fix a time scheduleto be followed for admissions at Under-graduate, Post Graduate and SuperSpeciality levels in the Medical Education. Clear directions were issued to theeffect that no deviations be made from the schedule so fixed.

It is not in dispute that 31[st] May of every year is stipulated as the last date forfilling up of the resultant vacancies in the Post Graduate Medical Course. Itmeans that it is not permissible for any college or university to admit candidates after 31[st] May of any year, irrespective of the manner, in which thevacancies may have arisen. There are several instances, where the SupremeCourt has tuned down the request of the University to relax the schedule.

Even assuming that a seat in the Course of M.D.Pathology in the 4[th]respondent-College existed, on account of failure of a selected candidate to jointhe course, neither the 1[st] respondent-University nor the 4[th] respondent-College can fill that seat after 31.05.2005. The classes have commenced muchearlier, and the candidates cannot be permitted to join the course in the middleof the stream. At any rate, the petitioner had approached this court, six monthsafter the deadline stipulated by the Medical Council of India. The Course hasalready started and substantial part of it is completed. Threfore, this Court doesnot find any basis to grant any relation to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Jsu3

_________

26.12.2005