JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The petitioner, a qualified Medical Graduate, had sought admission to the Post Graduate M. D. Course in Obst and Gynaecology in the Medical Colleges of the State of Assam for the Session 1998-99. According to the writ petitioner, though she was better placed in merit than the respondent No. 4, the authorities had granted admission to the respondent No. 4 by passing the superior claim of the writ petitioner. Hence, the present writ application has been filed for appropriate interference and for further directions from this Court.
2. The facts, in brief, may be recited at the outset.
Admission to the different Post Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of the State are regulated by the provision of Assam Medical College (Regulation of admission to the Post Graduate Course) Rules, 2000, Under the aforesaid Rules, a competitive examination, called the Entrance Examination, is to be held on the basis of which candidates are placed in order of merit. Thereafter, interview/counselling sessions are required to be held in which seats are offered in different streams depending on the total number of seats available against a particular stream and the relative merit of the candidates concerned. In the instant case, for the academic session 1998-99, the Entrance Examination was held on 28.7.2000, and in the result declared in the month of September, 2000, the petitioner, who had opted to pursue the MD course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, obtained 129 out of 200 marks. The first counselling/interview was held on 24.11.2000 and the petitioner was offered a seat to pursue the Diploma Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Accordingly, she took admission in the said course on 15.2.2001, A second counselling followed by a third was held on 16.6.2001 and 27.11.2001 and in the said counselling, though the petitioner persisted with her initial claim for a seat in the M.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, she was not successful, as according to the respondent authorities, no seat was available in the said course against which the petitioner could be accommodated. However, on 18.12.2001, the respondent No. 4 was offered a seat in the M. D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Silchar Medical College. As the respondent No. 4 was placed lower in merit than the writ petitioner having secured 118 out of 200 marks in the Entrance Examination, the petitioner has instituted the present writ proceeding for cancellation of the admission of the respondent No. 4 and for a further direction to the authorities to give admission to the petitioner against the aforesaid seat. It may be noticed herein that admission to the respondent No. 4 was offered by order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent Silchar Medical College and Hospital. In the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2001, it has been recited, that admission to respondent No. 4 has been granted pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2001 of the Director of Medical Education. The order dated 20.10.2001 of the Director of Medical Education referred to in the order dated 18.12.2001 is on record and the same would go to show that the respondent No. 4 was allowed to take admission against a vacant seat in the H.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Silchar Medical College, Silchar pursuant to the order dated 19.9.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4505/2001.
3. The claims made by the writ petitioner have been resisted by the official respondents as well as the private respondent No. 4 by filing separate counter affidavits.
The official respondents do not dispute that the respondent No. 4 was lower in merit than the writ petitioner in the result of the Entrance Examination. What is contended is that admission to the respondent No. 4 has been made pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 19.9.2001 in WP(C) No. 4505/2001. It is further contended that the seat in question was offered to the respondent No. 4, as at the relevant point of time, all the candidates including the writ petitioner who were placed, higher than the respondent No. 4 in merit and who had opted for the M. D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the fist instance, has been accommodated in other courses in the Medical Colleges of the State.
The private respondent No. 4 in her affidavit filed has contended that against the order dated 19.9.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4505/2001, she had instituted an appeal, i.e., Writ Appeal No. 474/ 2001 before this Court and by order dated 26.11.2001 passed in the Writ Appeal No. 474/2001, she was allowed to participate in the 3rd counselling which was scheduled to be held on 27.11.2001. As, in the meantime, she could come to know of the order dated 29.10.2001 offering her a seat in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, she had withdrawn the Writ Appeal No. 474/2001 which withdrawal was permitted by this Court on 4.12.2001.
4. I have heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General Assam and Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. Dr. U.C. Sarma, Director of Medical Education, Assam is personally present in the Court along with the connected records, perhaps to assist the learned Addl. Advocate General,
5. Certain facts relevant to the case are not in dispute. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were aspirants for a seat in the M. D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The writ petitioner was better placed than the respondent No. 4 in terms of merit. The writ petitioner though offered a seat to pursue the Diploma Course in obstetrics and Gynaecology had persisted with her claim for a seat in the M. D. Course in the said subject all along, yet the seat was offered to the respondent No. 4.
It is also agreed by the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the official respondents that the seat in question was off erred to the respondent No. 4 on the strength of the order dated 19.9.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 4505/2001. The learned Addl. Advocate General has, however, admitted that this Court, by order dated 19.9.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 4505/2001, did not direct for admission of the respondent No. 4 without consideration of the relative merit of the other eligible candidates and that what this Court really directed is for admission to any vacant seat in the M. D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology on the basis of merit. The learned Addl. Advocate General has, therefore, admitted in the course of the oral hearing, that admission of the respondent No. 4 made by overlooking the claim of the writ petitioner, purportedly on the strength of the order dated 19.9.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4505/2001, has been wrongly made. The relevant records have also been produced to show that it is not only the writ petitioner but there were seven other candidates who were placed higher in merit than the respondent No. 4 at the time when the seat was offered to the said respondent.
6. Admission to any professional course, viz. Medicine, Engineering or legal studies has to be made solely on the basis of merit, to be determined by an objective criteria, subject to the rule of reservation. The criterion of merit for admission has to be applied not only at the initial stage of filling up the available seats but also for filling up any seats that may fall vacant after commencement of the course. As the candidates who had initially opted for admission to a particular stream, may have got accommodated in other streams but such candidates may still nurse the desire to pursue the Course of their original choice, the offer to switch over, in the event of a seat falling vacant, must be made to ail eligible candidates and the eventual admission against such vacant seat(s) must be granted on the basis of relative merit of the candidates who may have respondent to such offer. Such offer in respect of the vacant seat(s) may be made by means of appropriate notice or newspaper advertisement. This is a requirement which is imposed by the doctrine of fairness which is cardinal to the principles enshrined by the Constitution. The above course of action had not been followed in the instant case and the seat in question had been unilateralry offered to the respondent No. 4 ignoring the better claim of the writ petitioner and perhaps, several other candidates Who may have wanted to pursue the M. D, Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology notwithstanding their admission in other courses of study. The principles enunciated above would be kept in mind by the concerned authorities in formulating their action in cases of future admission to the different Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges of the State.
7. The M. D. Course in different streams are of 3 years duration. Each Post Graduate Course in Medicine or Surgery is a highly professional and competitive course requiring the undivided attention of the candidates pursuing the Course. Normally, a candidate ought to be declared qualified in the Course only after pursuing the entire duration of the Course. Of course, there may be some reasonable exception to the length of the course and the authority may allow mid-stream admission to be made upto a certain point of time. What should be cut off line for mid-stream admission is really for the authority to decide, as such a decision would naturally involve consideration of very many technical aspects of the matter to judge which aspects, this Court would not be the appropriate authority. Determination of the cut off line as indicated above would also require that seats against any particular quota remaining unfilled upto a particular point of time should revert to the common pool. This is another aspect of the matter that the authority concerned must look into and clarify in cases of future admission.
8. On the basis of the facts as emanating from the above discussion, the question that now has to be determined is what reliefs) can be afforded to the writ petitioner. The particular course to which the writ petitioner sought admission commenced from February, 2001 and out of 3 years duration of the course, almost 2 years is over. Mid-stream admission at this stage, in the considered view of the Court, ought not to be allowed. The alternative submission made by the writ petitioner that in the facts of the case, she may be allowed to pursue another year of studies in the Diploma Course (Diploma Course is of 2 years duration) and that the Diploma Course pursued by her should be converted to a M. D. Course, does not appear to be either practical or technically feasible. In such a situation, this Court declines to interfere with the admission granted to the respondent No. 4, notwithstanding the apparent illegalities in the admission process.
9. That the petitioner has been wronged along with other eligible candidates is obvious and admitted., The directions of this Court dated 19.9.2001 in WP(C) No. 4505/2001 are absolutely clear and unambiguous and no attempt has been made, and very rightly, to argue to the contrary. This Court, therefore, will have to explore all other avenues by which the wrong committed can be remedied. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, this Court is of the considered view that the wrongs committed, to the writ petitioner as well as to such other persons who may have been overlooked, ought not be ignored. The remedy of a legal injury is the essence of the judicial process. Monetary compensation has been understood by the judicial verdict as a palliative to be applied as a balm to the injury caused. Such monetary compensation, however, inadequate it may be, has been devised as a means of restitution.
10. In view of the above, it is directed that State Govt. shall pay to the writ petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000,00 (Rupees fifty thousand) within a period of 2 (two) months from today to remedy the apparent legal injury as has been caused to her. The Director of Medical Education has placed before the Court a list of seven other persons who were situated higher in merit then respondent No. 4 at the time when the seat in question was offered to the said respondent. For reasons that need not be gone into, it is possible that there are other persons who were situate higher in merit than the respondent No. 4. The Director of Medical Education will ascertain from the records as to how may candidates higher in merit than the Respondent No. 4 had initially opted, for a seat in the M. D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and as all such persons having also been deprived of their legitimate dues, the compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 awarded to the writ petitioner shall also be awarded to all such persons whose names are to be compiled in accordance with the above directions.
11. This Court also does not see any justifiable reason to burden the State Exchequer on account of the irresponsible and unjustified, if not mala fide, actions of its Officers. This Court, therefore, directs that the total compensation for which the State would be burdened with, in terms of the present Judgment, will be recovered from the particular Officer/Officers involved in the process of admission of the respondent No. 4.
12. The writ petition shall stand closed in terms of the above observations and directions.
