P. Veerakajalakshmi v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:19.08.2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALANW.P. No. 8360 of 2010P. Veerakajalakshmi.. PetitionerVs.The Director,Jawharlal Nehru Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research,Puducherry... RespondentWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct therespondent to admit the petitioner to the 1st year M.D. Course for theacademic year 2010-2011.For Petitioner : Mr.V.AjayakumarFor Respondent:Mr.M.Raveendran,Addl. Solicitor Generalfor Mr. M.T.Arunan O R D E RBy consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writpetition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admissionitself. 2. Heard Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.M.Raveendran, learned Additional Solicitor Generalwith Mr.M.T. Arunan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a directionto the respondent to admit her to the 1st year M.D. Course for theacademic year 2010-2011.4.According to the petitioner, she has completed M.B.B.S.Course in November 2006 and internship in January 2008 and that sheis entitled to get admission to the M.D. Course in the respondentinstitute. Since, she belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) category, sheclaims the benefit of reservation in the case of admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4a.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent issueda notification regarding the entrance test for admission to the M.D.Course and she appeared for the entrance test and results werepublished by the respondent institute. In the test, she scored 450marks out of 1000. The merit list was also published on the basis ofthe marks which was published in the website of the respondentinstitute. The respondent informed the petitioner that thecounselling for M.D. Course will start and that the candidates shallsee the status of the counselling in the website. It was understoodfrom the website that the first counselling was conducted for thecandidates who have taken marks upto 549. Since the petitionersecured 450 marks, she believed that she would be called for thesecond counselling.4b. The petitioner further stated that she came to know thatthe second counselling started on 21.04.2010 and the candidates whosecured 448 onwards have been called for the second counselling.Since she secured 450 marks, she ought to have been called for thesecond counselling. According to her, in the website, there was nointimation regarding the counselling of candidates, who secured marksbetween 549 and 449. Therefore, she approached the respondentimmediately and she was orally informed that the candidates whosecured marks between 548 and 447 have been included in the extendedcounselling regarding which, there was no intimation eitherpersonally or in the website. The petitioner requested therespondent to include her name in the 2nd counselling, which was to beheld on 21.04.2010, but, it was not accepted by the respondent atall. 4c. The petitioner claims that since she acquired more marksand that she belongs to SC category, she is entitled for admission tothe M.D. Course and denying the same is most arbitrary anddiscriminatory. Therefore, she filed this writ petition on the groundthat she obtained 450 marks and hence, she is entitled to the secondcounselling and to get admission for M.D. Course. Since the secondcounselling started on 21.04.2010, the respondent refused to permither to attend the extended counselling.5.The respondent has filed counter. In the counter, therespondent has denied all the allegations in the writ petition exceptthose which are specifically admitted. 5a.The respondent would state that Jawaharlal Institute ofPostgraduate Medical Education and Research (in short 'JIPMER') is anInstitute of national importance funded by the Ministry of Health andFamily Welfare of Government of India. With regard to thepetitioner's prayer seeking a direction to the respondent to keep oneseat vacant in the first year M.D. Course for the academic year 2010– 2011 and to permit her to participate in the counselling for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admission to the first year M.D. Course, the respondent would submitthat the counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 as per theschedule given in the prospectus. Since adequate number of candidatesin the Unreserved (UR) category did not turn up for counselling, anextended counselling had to be held and the date of extendedcounselling was fixed as 05.04.2010 and the notice of the extendedcounselling which was to be held on 05.04.2010, was hosted in thewebsite on 20.03.2010. It was informed in the said notice that SCcandidates from ranks 66 to 325 in the SC category were to attend thecounselling. The number of seats discipline-wise as indicated in thenotice, is detailed below.Sl.No.Name of DisciplineNumber ofSeats1M.D. Community Medicine32M.S. Ophthalmology33M.D. Radiotherapy14M.D. TransfusionMedicine15M.D. Anatomy36M.D. Biochemistry37M.D. Microbiology48M.D. Pathology69M.D. Pharmacology410M.D. Physiology4Total32Except the disciplines mentioned at Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3, all otherdisciplines are non-clinical and in the counselling held on05.04.2010, the clinical seats mentioned at Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3 have beenopted by candidates, whose marks are way above the petitioner, asdetailed below:Sl.No.Name of DisciplineCategoryMarksNumber ofSeats1M.D. Community MedicineURURSC66763447232M.S. OphthalmologyUROBCINST66666261933M.D. RadiotherapyUR6601 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5b. The ranking of the petitioner in the SC category-wise meritlist of eligible candidate is 317. The petitioner having obtained450 marks out of 1000 was not present for the counselling held on05.04.2010. However, from the data presented above, it is clear thatthe petitioner could not have exercised her option for a seat in theclinical discipline in view of her merit ranking in the entranceexamination, even had she been present for the counselling held on05.04.2010. At this point of time, the petitioner approached thiscourt by filing the present writ petition. This Court, by an orderdated 22.04.2010 in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 of the present writpetition directed the respondent to keep one seat vacant in M.D.Course according to the merit of the petitioner, if available,pending further order. It was also directed that if no seat wasavailable, it is open to the petitioner to implead the last candidateso that the Court would be in a position to hear the said candidateand pass appropriate order. 5c. The respondent would further submit that he filed anaffidavit seeking clarification on the order of this Court dated22.04.2010 in respect of vacancy that may arise due to non-joining ofthe selected candidate. This Court, vide its order dated 30.04.2010,was pleased to clarify that the petitioner's claim would beconsidered on the basis of the ranking in the entrance examinationagainst the vacancy that may arise due to non-joining of the selectedcandidate and the petitioner shall also appear before the respondenton 31.05.2010 or any date as required by the respondent. It wasfurther clarified in the order that the counsel for the petitionerhas no objection to modify the said order.5d. In compliance of the order of this Court, a memorandumdated 08.05.2010 was sent by Registered Post to the petitioner,marking a copy to the counsel for the petitioner, requiring thepetitioner to opt for any one seat in any one of the disciplines ofM.D. Biochemistry or M.D. Physiology. It was also stated therein thatthe option should be conveyed in writing within two days from thedate of receipt of the memorandum, failing which, it would mean thatthe petitioner is not interested in the offer and the same would betreated as withdrawn without any further communication. Thecommunication sent by Registered Post to the office of the counselfor the petitioner was returned on 28.05.2010 with the postalacknowledgement 'door locked'. 5e. The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitionersent a letter dated nil addressed to the Dean (Academic) and the samewas received on 13.05.2010 by the office of the respondent. In thatletter, the petitioner had referred to the letter sent by the Dean(Academic) and required full details of the mark allotment of M.D.Seat (SC Quota) and required an M.D. Seat in clinical branch as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her merit rank. In compliance of the request made by the petitioner,a Note, dated 20.05.2010 was sent with the following details. "The following candidates have been admitted against the SCquota:Sl. No.Name of the StudentCourseMarks1Ponraj.MGeneral Medicine6432Sunita NamdevPaediatrics6283Nandish Kumar.K.C.Orthopaedics6054Kalaranjani.SObst. & Gynae.5925Vinothan.J.S.General Surgery5916Ghodake Nishant BapuDer., Vene &Leprosy5857Santha Lakshmi.AAnaesthesiology5748Raghava.AAnaesthesiology5749R.P. PriyadharsiniPharmacology50510Suguna.E.Community Medicine47211Aravinthan.SAnatomy44312Gopinath.M.Physiology430You are not eligible for a seat in the clinicaldiscipline based on the marks obtained in the entranceexamination.The final counselling for admission to the P.G.Courses will be held on 28.05.2010 instead of 27.05.2010being a public holiday (Buddha Purnima) and you arerequired to appear for the same. During counselling, yourclaim for a seat will be considered as per the order of thecourt dated 30.04.2010 in Writ Petition No.8360 of 2010, onthe basis of your ranking in the entrance examinationagainst the available vacancy."5f. According to the respondent, from the details provided tothe candidate, based on the record maintained by the institution, itis clear that the candidate, who secured 585/574/472 marks out of1000 (more than 450 secured by the petitioner) had opted for seats inclinical disciplines, based on their merit ranking in the entranceexamination under the SC category. Two candidates who had secured 443marks and 430 marks (less that 450 marks secured by the petitioner)due to non-availability of vacant seats in the clinical disciplinehad opted for M.D. Anatomy and M.D. Physiology as per the meritranking in the entrance examination under SC category. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5g. It is further submitted that the counselling was held on21.04.2010 and since the petitioner did not appear for the extendedcounselling held on 05.04.2010, she was not called for thecounselling held on 21.04.2010. Based on the roster point and themerit ranking, one seat (M.D. Anatomy) was opted by the candidateunder the SC category, having secured 443 marks out of 1000 and oneseat (M.D. Physiology) was opted by the candidate under the SCcategory having secured 430 marks out of 1000. Even if the petitionerhad appeared for the counselling on 21.04.2010, she would have hadthe option to opt for a seat in M.D. Anatomy or M.D. Physiologypresently opted by the candidates with 443 and 430 marks. Thepetitioner, based on the merit ranking in the entrance examinationand her ranking in the SC category, could not have opted for a seatin the clinical discipline.5h. The respondent would further state that the petitioner wasprovided with all the information requested by her from theirinstitution vide Note dated 20.05.2010 and the petitioner did notappear for the counselling held on 28.05.2010 to opt for a seat asper her merit ranking as required by the respondent pursuant to theorder of this Court dated 30.04.2010. Moreover, the petitioner didnot come forward to opt for a seat as required in the Memorandumdated 08.05.2010, providing her an opportunity to opt for a seat.Therefore, the petitioner, in spite of being provided with fullopportunity in compliance with the orders of this Court dated22.04.2010 and 30.04.2010 to opt for a seat, as per her merit rankingin the entrance examination, has failed to utilize the opportunity bynot appearing for the counselling held on 28.05.2010. Therefore, therespondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.However, an additional affidavit has been filed by therespondent stating that the discipline-wise reservation is notprovided in respect of any category. The roster point reservation forvarious categories are provided in the prospectus as appendix-I. Thefirst round of counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010.Since the number of candidates present on the mentioned dates againstthe unreserved category got exhausted, the counselling could not becontinued and hence, an extended first round of counselling was heldon 05.04.2010. The second round of counselling was held on 21.04.2010and the final round of counselling was held on 28.05.2010. Thedetails of the candidates called for the counselling held on variousdates are, as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Details of candidates called for MD/MS counselling - 2010First Round of Counselling held on 18.03.2010and 19.03.2010CategoryRankFromToTotalUnreserved1202202Institute17575OBC1101101SC16565ST13030Total473Extended First Round of Counselling held on 05.04.2010Unreserved203899697Institute18-21, 26-29, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40,41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54,56, 61-64, 67, 68, 70 and 7530OBC101352251SC44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 56 and from 66to 325266ST319969OPHOBC – OPH(5) & (6)2Total1315Second Round of Counselling held on 21.04.2010CategoryRankFromToTotalThe candidates who have attended the first / extended counselling areeligible to attend the second round of counsellingUnreserved90045523653Institute000OBC35324252073SC326534209ST000Total5935Third Round of Counselling held on 28.05.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Counselling done as per the ranked merit from among the candidatesregistered on the day. The candidates who had already been allottedto any seat or who had opted for any seat in first, extended firstand second round of counselling but not joined or those who joinedand later discontinued the course will not be permitted to attend thethird counselling. 6a. It is also stated that the petitioner, who had secured 450marks out of 1000 and placed at rank number 317 as per the SCcategory-wise merit list of eligible candidates, should have appearedfor counselling on 05.04.2010 as per the schedule detailed above. Thecandidate did not attend the counselling and hence, was not eligibleto be called for the counselling held on 21.04.2010. The details ofthe candidates admitted to the various Postgraduate courses againstthe seats reserved for Pondicherry Schedule Caste category are asunder:Sl.No.Name of theStudentCourseMarksDate of attendedCounselling1Ponraj.MGeneral Medicine64318th & 19th March,20102Sunita NamdevPaediatrics62818th & 19th March,20103Nandish Kumar K.C.Orthopaedics60518th & 19th March,20104Kalaranjani.SObst. & Gynae.59218th & 19th March,20105Vinothan J.S.General Surgery59118th & 19th March,20106Ghodake NishantBapuDer.,Vene &Leprosy58518th & 19th March,20107Santha Lakshmi A.Anaesthesiology57418th & 19th March,20108Raghava A.Anaesthesiology57418th & 19th March,20109Priyadharsini R.P.Pharmacology5055th April, 201010Suguna E.CommunityMedicine4725th April, 201011Aravinthan S.Anatomy44321st April, 201012Gopinath M.Physiology43021st April, 20106b.The respondent would state that from the details providedabove, it is clear that the last seat in the clinical discipline hadbeen opted by the candidate with 472 marks and even if the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had attended counselling on 05.04.2010 in view of her rank in themerit list, she could not have opted for a seat in the clinicaldiscipline. If the petitioner had attended the counselling on05.04.2010, she could have opted for a seat in M.D. Anatomy or M.D.Physiology only. The petitioner was required to opt for one seat inany of the disciplines of M.D. Biochemistry or M.D. Physiology videMemorandum dated 08.05.2010 issued by the Institute. But, she didnot come forward to opt for a seat. Vide letter dated 13.05.2010,she requested to allot a seat in the clinical branch and foradditional details regarding the allotment of M.D. Seats under the SCquota. The candidate was provided with the details vide letter dated20.05.2010 and was also required to attend the counselling on28.05.2010 and opt for a seat as per her merit ranking. It was alsoclearly stated in the letter that the petitioner was not eligible fora seat in the clinical discipline based on the marks obtained in theentrance examination. The petitioner did not attend the counsellingheld on 28.05.2010 to opt for a seat. The respondent had fullycomplied with the orders of this Court dated 22.04.2010 and30.04.2010 and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.7. Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner hasstrenuously contended that the petitioner, who had secured 450 marks,belonging to SC category was to be called for the counselling on05.04.2010. But, she did not receive any communication, which is mostarbitrary and discriminatory. Those candidates, who secured marksupto 549 have been called for the first counselling and thecandidates, who obtained 448 onwards have been called for the secondcounselling. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible for a clinicalseat in the M.D. Course.8.The said contention has been refuted by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General contending that the ranking of thepetitioner in the SC category-wise merit list of eligible candidatesis 317 and as regards the clinical discipline, the first threecandidates were provided with seats and their marks were 643, 628 and605. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is not in the spirit ofselection process. He would further contend that the petitioner wasgiven all opportunity and information sought for by her. Therefore,it cannot be contended that the petitioner has been deprived of heropportunity. 9. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perusedthe material documents available on record.10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completedM.B.B.S course and internship. She also belongs to SC category. Sheappeared for the entrance examination for admission to M.D. Coursefor the academic year 2010-2011 and secured 450 marks. It is seenfrom the records that there was a counselling for variousdisciplines, both for clinical as well as non-clinical. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 and thereafter, anextended counselling was held on 05.04.2010, which was also hosted inthe website on 20.03.2010 and the candidates were informedaccordingly. However, the candidates were called for the counsellingon a subsequent date, namely, 21.04.2010.11. From the records, it is revealed that clinical disciplinesconsist of M.D. Community Medicine, M.S. Opthalmology and M.D.Radiotherapy and non- clinical disciplines consist of M.D.Transfusion Medicine, M.D. Anatomy, M.D. Biochemistry, M.D.Microbiology, M.D.Pathology, M.D. Pharmacology and M.D. Physiology.In the counselling held on 05.04.2010, the candidates, who opted forclinical seats are way above the petitioner, as detailed below:Sl.No.Name of DisciplineCategoryMarksNumber ofSeats1M.D. CommunityMedicineURURSC66763447232M.S. OphthalmologyUROBCINST66666261933M.D. RadiotherapyUR660112. The petitioner claims that she secured 450 marks in theentrance examination. A perusal of the material documents wouldreveal that the candidates, who secured 574 and 472 marks had optedfor seats in the clinical discipline based on the merit ranking inthe entrance examination under the SC category. The two candidates,who had secured 443 and 430 marks, which are less than 450 marks ofthe petitioner had opted for M.D. Anatomy and M.D. Physiology due tonon-availability of seats in clinical discipline. Since thepetitioner did not appear for the extended counselling held on05.04.2010, she was not called for the counselling held on21.04.2010. Based on the roster point and the merit ranking, one seatin M.D. Anatomy was opted by the candidate, who secured 443 marks andone seat in M.D. Physiology was opted by the candidate, who secured430 marks, under SC category. Had the petitioner appeared for thecounselling on 21.04.2010, she would have had an option to opt forany seat in M.D. Anatomy or M.D. Physiology. The petitioner, basedon the merit ranking in the entrance examination and the rankingunder the SC category could not have opted for a seat in the clinicaldiscipline. 13. In the course of hearing the matter, the respondentproduced a copy of the proceedings in No.Edn.11(1)/SJ/2010, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

08.05.2010, wherein, it is stated that in pursuance of the orders ofthis court dated 22.04.2010 and 30.04.2010 in W.P.No.8360 of 2010,the petitioner herein is required to exercise her option to opt for aseat in any one of the disciplines namely, M.D. (Biochemistry) andM.D. (Physiology) and that she should convey her option, in writing,within two days from the date of receipt of the order, failing whichit would be meant that she is not interested in the offer and thesame will be treated as withdrawn without any further correspondence.14.On instruction from the petitioner, learned counsel for thepetitioner would submit that the petitioner has the right to claimM.D. General Medicine or any other clinical discipline. Though, thepetitioner has come before this court with a prayer directing therespondent to provide a seat in M.D. Course, she has not made itclear as to whether the seat sought by her has to be provided eitherin the clinical discipline or in the non-clinical discipline. Whileexamining the above position, it is seen that the petitioner's marksand ranking are below the clinical discipline and she is entitledonly for non-clinical discipline and the respondent has rightlyoffered a seat to the petitioner in M.D. Bio-chemistry or M.D.Physiology. 15.In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner isdirected to exercise her option for a seat in any one of the non-clinical disciplines, namely, M.D. Bio-chemistry or M.D. Physiology,as offered by the respondent vide their Memorandum dated 08.05.2010,within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. In the event of failure on the part of the petitionerto seek admission in any one of the said non-clinical disciplines, itis open to the respondent to fill up the seat, considering theschedule of medical admission without any further delay.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Nocosts. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarabe/arTo :The Director, Jawharlal Nehru Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research,Puducherry.1 cc To Mr.V.Ajayakumar, Advocate, SR.616601 cc To Mr.M.J.Arunan, Advocate, SR.61393 Order in W.P. No.8360 of 2010GV (CO)RH (2.9.10)