ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla. J.
1. The State is the Appellant herein. The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2001 in W.P. No. 23181 of 2001, wherein, the learned Judge, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 9.10.2001 and allot her a free seat for her in any one of the recognized Dental Colleges based on the observations made by the learned Judge in the earlier part of his order.
2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner who belongs to Backward Class Community, secured the cut off marks of 286.01 in the centralized admission of candidates to the Medical professional courses in the Academic year 2001- 2002. The cut off marks in respect of Backward Class Community was stated to be 285.82 in the relevant year. In such circumstances, when the petitioner’s turn came for counselling on 4.8.2001, it appears that there was no free scat available and therefore, the petitioner opted for a payment seat for the dental course in the second respondent institution. Accordingly, necessary allotment order was issued to the petitioner on 10.8.2001. The petitioner also joined the said institution. However, due to subsequent developments, when there was scope for filling up certain free seats in two other institutions, the appellant arranged for fresh counselling on 14.9.2001. Along with other candidates, the petitioner was also asked to appear for the counselling on 14.9.2001 and the petitioner was offered a free seat in one of the two institutions where free seats were available’ on that date. However, the petitioner was stated to have declined the offer on the ground that as on that date, the said institutions were not recognized. It is also on record that the writ petitioner was assured that in future if availability of free seats in any other recognized institutions arise, she would be allotted a free seat.
3. Subsequently, the State Government published a Notification in the leading Newspapers both in Tamil as well as in English on 16.9.2001 and 19.9.2001 for fresh counselling on 21.9.2001 at 9 a.m. The substance of the Notification published in the Newspapers is as under:
“Counselling for the Vacancies in BDS Courses for payment and free seats in Self Financing Dental Colleges will be held at the office of the Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 on 21.9.2001 at 9 a.m. All the eligible and applied candidates can attend the counselling along with Demand Draft for Rs. 70,000 fox payment seats and Rs. 7500 for free seats drawn in favour of Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai-10. No individual intimation will be sent separately and this Notification may be treated as individual intimation. Seats will he allotted on merit basis among the date and time as specified in the Notification. No communal reservation will be followed for allotment of seats under payment seal category. Candidates without Demand Draft will not be allowed to attend counselling. Candidates are required to bring all the original certificates or bona fide certificates from the institution where the candidate is present studying. If sufficient number of candidates do not turn up for rural reservation seats in various categories BC/MBC/SC/ST’, those seats will be carried over to general pool under the same category, as per clause No. S. 1(f) of the prospectus for 2001-2002 session on the same day and the seats will be allotted according to the merit in the respective category. The candidates already joined in BDS payment seat may also attend counselling for free seats, if vacancies are available in the respective categories as mentioned.”
4. Though the said Notification was available to all, for reasons best known to the writ petitioner, she did not attend the said counselling on 21.9.2001. It was only thereafter, the writ petitioner came forward with a representation dated 9.10.2001 contending that she was left out and that free seats were allotted to persons who secured cut off marks lesser than that of the petitioner.
5. On finding that there was no response from the first respondent, the writ petitioner came forward with a writ petition. The learned Judge disposed of the present Writ Petition along with certain other Writ Petitions by a common order dated 20.12.2001. In fact in Paragraph 21 of the impugned order the learned Judge has held as under:
“Para 21. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that notification in Tamil dailies, it in the specific case of the respondent that the notification has been issued in more than one Tamil dailies and English dailies more particularly in English daily known as ‘Sunday Express’. Such a notification issued in Tamil daily cannot be called as known public in new paper which is under circulation throughout Tamil Nadu. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 21031 and 20633 of 2001 have not attended the held on 21.9.2001. Hence, they cannot claim that the candidates who have secured lesser marks, attended the counselling should not be selected, when the petitioners have not attended the counselling held on 21.9.2001, it will not open to them to question the candidates who have secured lesser marks have been selected. It is the basic principle in the matter of admissions, counselling has held, students are allotted only on the basis of the merit list and from among the eandidales who have atlended- the counselling.”
However, in the case of the writ petitioner/ the learned Judge was of the view that the writ petitioner’s representation dated 9.10.2001 ought to have been considered by the respondents and a free seat in any one of the recognized Dental Colleges should have been allotted to her.
6. We are of the view that in the light of the learned Judge’s own conclusion in para 21 of the Judgment, the writ petitioner was also not entitled for a free seat, inasmuch in spite of the Publication effected by the first respondent in the News papers on 16.9.2001 and 19.9.2001 for the counselling on 21.9.2001, since the writ petitioner did not attend the counselling on 21.9.2001, the writ petitioner lost her right to insist for a free seal on any dale thereafter. The assumption of the writ petitioner that by virtue of Clause 8.2(c) and (d) of the prospectus, she might not have been allowed to exercise an option for a free seat once over, again in the counselling on 21.9.2001 cannot be the basis for claiming a right of allotment subsequently dc-hors the counselling dated 21.9.2001 when all the free seats got filled up on that day. The contention that by virtue of Clause 8.2(d), the writ petitioner having exercised her option on 14.9.2001 she wilfully abstained from participating in the counselling on 21.9.2001 cannot be accepted inasmuch as, the Notification for counselling on 21.9.2001 specifically mentioned that the candidates already joined in BDS payment seats may also attend the counselling for free seats if vacancies available in the respective categories as mentioned. The said stand cannot also be accepted for the reason that one of her contentions in the writ petition was that when the writ petitioner declined the offer for a free seat on 14.9.2001 in the counselling on the ground that the institution to which the seat was offered was not a recognized one, she was assured that she would be allotted a free seat in a recognized institution as and when availability of such seats arises in future.
Therefore, the writ petitioner had absolutely no justification for not attending the counselling on 29.1.2001. When once the writ petitioner withdrew herself from attending the counselling on 29.1.2001, she cannot be heard to say that irrespective of her deliberate absence from attending the counselling on 29.1.2001, she should have been allotted a free seat based on her subsequent representation dated 9.10.2001. The contention of Mr. G.R. Swami Nathan, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, that the case of the first respondent herein should be dealt with differently from the case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 21031 and 20633 of 2001 does not stand to reasoning.
7. We are of the considered view that whatever reason which weighed with the Learned Single Judge for not granting any relief to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 21031 and 20633 of 2001 on the basis that they did not attend the counselling on 29.1.2001 would equally apply to the writ petitioner as well and therefore the relief granted to the first respondent in W.P. Nos. 23181 of 2001 cannot be sustained. We do not find any other special reasons for having granted the relief to the first respondent alone by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 23181 of 2001. Therefore, looked at from any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge in having granted the relief to the first respondent cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The Writ Appeal stands allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P. is closed.