IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:19.08.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P. No. 8360 of 2010 P. Veerakajalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs. The Director, Jawharlal Nehru Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry. .. Respondent Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to admit the petitioner to the 1st year M.D. Course for the academic year 2010-2011. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajayakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Raveendran, Addl. Solicitor General for Mr. M.T.Arunan O R D E R
By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. Heard Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Raveendran, learned Additional Solicitor General with Mr.M.T. Arunan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to admit her to the 1st year M.D. Course for the academic 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 she is entitled to get admission to the M.D. Course in the respondent institute. Since, she belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) category, she claims the benefit of reservation in the case of admission.
4a. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent issued a notification regarding the entrance test for admission to the M.D. Course and she appeared for the entrance test and results were published by the respondent institute. In the test, she scored 450 marks out of 1000. The merit list was also published on the basis of the marks which was published in the website of the respondent institute. The respondent informed the petitioner that the counselling for M.D. Course will start and that the candidates shall see the status of the counselling in the website. It was understood from the website that the first counselling was conducted for the candidates who have taken marks upto 549. Since the petitioner secured 450 marks, she believed that she would be called for the second counselling.
4b. The petitioner further stated that she came to know that the second counselling started on 21.04.2010 and the candidates who secured 448 onwards have been called for the second counselling. Since she secured 450 marks, she ought to have been called for the second counselling. According to her, in the website, there was no intimation regarding the counselling of candidates, who secured marks between 549 and 449. Therefore, she approached the respondent immediately and she was orally informed that the candidates who secured marks between 548 and 447 have been included in the extended counselling regarding which, there was no intimation either personally or in the website. The petitioner requested the respondent to include her name in the 2nd counselling, which was to be held on 21.04.2010, but, it was not accepted by the respondent at all.
4c. The petitioner claims that since she acquired more marks and that she belongs to SC category, she is entitled for admission to the M.D. Course and denying the same is most arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, she filed this writ petition on the ground that she obtained 450 marks and hence, she is entitled to the second counselling and to get admission for M.D. Course. Since the second counselling started on 21.04.2010, the respondent refused to permit her to attend the extended counselling.
5. The respondent has filed counter. In the counter, the respondent has denied all the allegations in the writ petition except those which are specifically admitted.
5a. The respondent would state that Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (in short ‘JIPMER’) is an Institute of national importance funded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of Government of India. With regard to the petitioner’s prayer seeking a direction to the respondent to keep one seat vacant in the first year M.D. Course for the academic year 2010 2011 and to permit her to participate in the counselling for admission to the first year M.D. Course, the respondent would submit that the counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 as per the schedule given in the prospectus. Since adequate number of candidates in the Unreserved (UR) category did not turn up for counselling, an extended counselling had to be held and the date of extended counselling was fixed as 05.04.2010 and the notice of the extended counselling which was to be held on 05.04.2010, was hosted in the website on 20.03.2010. It was informed in the said notice that SC candidates from ranks 66 to 325 in the SC category were to attend the counselling. The number of seats discipline-wise as indicated in the notice, is detailed below.
Sl. No.
Name of Discipline
Number of Seats
1
M.D. Community Medicine
3
2
M.S. Ophthalmology
3
3
M.D. Radiotherapy
1
4
M.D. Transfusion Medicine
1
5
M.D. Anatomy
3
6
M.D. Biochemistry
3
7
M.D. Microbiology
4
8
M.D. Pathology
6
9
M.D. Pharmacology
4
10
M.D. Physiology
4
Total
32
Except the disciplines mentioned at Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3, all other disciplines are non-clinical and in the counselling held on 05.04.2010, the clinical seats mentioned at Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3 have been opted by candidates, whose marks are way above the petitioner, as detailed below:
Sl. No.
Name of Discipline
Category
Marks
Number of Seats
1
M.D. Community Medicine
UR
UR
SC
667
634
472
3
2
M.S. Ophthalmology
UR
OBC
INST
666
662
619
3
3
M.D. Radiotherapy
UR
660
1
5b. The ranking of the petitioner in the SC category-wise merit list of eligible candidate is 317. The petitioner having obtained 450 marks out of 1000 was not present for the counselling held on 05.04.2010. However, from the data presented above, it is clear that the petitioner could not have exercised her option for a seat in the clinical discipline in view of her merit ranking in the entrance examination, even had she been present for the counselling held on 05.04.2010. At this point of time, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition. This Court, by an order dated 22.04.2010 in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 of the present writ petition 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 was available, it is open to the petitioner to implead the last candidate so that the Court would be in a position to hear the said candidate and pass appropriate order.
5c. The respondent would further submit that he filed an affidavit seeking clarification on the order of this Court dated 22.04.2010 in respect of vacancy that may arise due to non-joining of the selected candidate. This Court, vide its order dated 30.04.2010, was pleased to clarify that the petitioner’s claim would be considered on the basis of the ranking in the entrance examination against the vacancy that may arise due to non-joining of the selected candidate and the petitioner shall also appear before the respondent on 31.05.2010 or any date as required by the respondent. It was further clarified in the order that the counsel for the petitioner has no objection to modify the said order.
5d. In compliance of the order of this Court, a memorandum dated 08.05.2010 was sent by Registered Post to the petitioner, marking a copy to the counsel for the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to opt for any one seat in any one of the disciplines of M.D. Biochemistry or M.D. Physiology. It was also stated therein that the option should be conveyed in writing within two days from the date of receipt of the memorandum, failing which, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in the offer and the same would be treated as withdrawn without any further communication. The communication sent by Registered Post to the office of the counsel for the petitioner was returned on 28.05.2010 with the postal acknowledgement ‘door locked’.
5e. The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner sent a letter dated nil addressed to the Dean (Academic) and the same was received on 13.05.2010 by the office of the respondent. In that letter, 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 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 SC quota:
Sl. No.
Name of the Student
Course
Marks
1
Ponraj.M
General Medicine
643
2
Sunita Namdev
Paediatrics
628
3
Nandish Kumar.K.C.
Orthopaedics
605
4
Kalaranjani.S
Obst. & Gynae.
592
5
Vinothan.J.S.
General Surgery
591
6
Ghodake Nishant Bapu
Der., Vene & Leprosy
585
7
Santha Lakshmi.A
Anaesthesiology
574
8
Raghava.A
Anaesthesiology
574
9
R.P. Priyadharsini
Pharmacology
505
10
Suguna.E.
Community Medicine
472
11
Aravinthan.S
Anatomy
443
12
Gopinath.M.
Physiology
430
You are not eligible for a seat in the clinical discipline based on the marks obtained in the entrance examination.
The final counselling for admission to the P.G. Courses will be held on 28.05.2010 instead of 27.05.2010 being a public holiday (Buddha Purnima) and you are required to appear for the same. During counselling, your claim for a seat will be considered as per the order of the court dated 30.04.2010 in Writ Petition No.8360 of 2010, on the basis of your ranking in the entrance examination against the available vacancy.”
5f. According to the respondent, from the details provided to the candidate, based on the record maintained by the institution, it is clear that the candidate, who secured 585/574/472 marks out of 1000 (more than 450 secured by the petitioner) had opted for seats in clinical disciplines, based on their merit ranking in the entrance examination under the SC category. Two candidates who had secured 443 marks and 430 marks (less that 450 marks secured by the petitioner) due to non-availability of vacant seats in the clinical discipline had opted for M.D. Anatomy and M.D. Physiology as per the merit ranking in the entrance examination under SC category.
5g. It is further submitted that the counselling was held on 21.04.2010 and since the petitioner did not appear for the extended counselling held on 05.04.2010, she was not called for the counselling held on 21.04.2010. Based on the roster point and the merit ranking, one seat (M.D. Anatomy) was opted by the candidate under the SC category, having secured 443 marks out of 1000 and one seat (M.D. Physiology) was opted by the candidate under the SC category having secured 430 marks out of 1000. Even if the petitioner had appeared for the counselling on 21.04.2010, she would have had the option to opt for a seat in M.D. Anatomy or M.D. Physiology presently opted by the candidates with 443 and 430 marks. The petitioner, based on the merit ranking in the entrance examination and her ranking in the SC category, could not have opted for a seat in the clinical discipline.
5h. The respondent would further state that the petitioner was provided with all the information requested by her from their institution vide Note dated 20.05.2010 and the petitioner did not appear for the counselling held on 28.05.2010 to opt for a seat as per her merit ranking as required by the respondent pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.04.2010. Moreover, the petitioner did not come forward to opt for a seat as required in the Memorandum dated 08.05.2010, providing her an opportunity to opt for a seat. Therefore, the petitioner, in spite of being provided with full opportunity in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 22.04.2010 and 30.04.2010 to opt for a seat, as per her merit ranking in the entrance examination, has failed to utilize the opportunity by not appearing for the counselling held on 28.05.2010. Therefore, the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. However, an additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the discipline-wise reservation is not provided in respect of any category. The roster point reservation for various categories are provided in the prospectus as appendix-I. The first round of counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. Since the number of candidates present on the mentioned dates against the unreserved category got exhausted, the counselling could not be continued and hence, an extended first round of counselling was held on 05.04.2010. The second round of counselling was held on 21.04.2010 and the final round of counselling was held on 28.05.2010. The details of the candidates called for the counselling held on various dates are, as under:
Details of candidates called for MD/MS counselling – 2010
First Round of Counselling held on 18.03.2010and 19.03.2010
Category
Rank
From
To
Total
Unreserved
1
202
202
Institute
1
75
75
OBC
1
101
101
SC
1
65
65
ST
1
30
30
Total
473
Extended First Round of Counselling held on 05.04.2010
Unreserved
203
899
697
Institute
18-21, 26-29, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 61-64, 67, 68, 70 and 75
30
OBC
101
352
251
SC
44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 56 and from 66 to 325
266
ST
31
99
69
OPH
OBC OPH(5) & (6)
2
Total
1315
Second Round of Counselling held on 21.04.2010
Category
Rank
From
To
Total
The candidates who have attended the first / extended counselling are eligible to attend the second round of counselling
Unreserved
900
4552
3653
Institute
0
0
0
OBC
353
2425
2073
SC
326
534
209
ST
0
0
0
Total
5935
Third Round of Counselling held on 28.05.2010
Counselling done as per the ranked merit from among the candidates registered on the day. The candidates who had already been allotted to any seat or who had opted for any seat in first, extended first and second round of counselling but not joined or those who joined and later discontinued the course will not be permitted to attend the third counselling.
6a. It is also stated that the petitioner, who had secured 450 marks out of 1000 and placed at rank number 317 as per the SC category-wise merit list of eligible candidates, should have appeared for counselling on 05.04.2010 as per the schedule detailed above. The candidate did not attend the counselling and hence, was not eligible to be called for the counselling held on 21.04.2010. The details of the candidates admitted to the various Postgraduate courses against the seats reserved for Pondicherry Schedule Caste category are as under:
Sl. No.
Name of the Student
Course
Marks
Date of attended Counselling
1
Ponraj.M
General Medicine
643
18th & 19th March, 2010
2
Sunita Namdev
Paediatrics
628
18th & 19th March, 2010
3
Nandish Kumar K.C.
Orthopaedics
605
18th & 19th March, 2010
4
Kalaranjani.S
Obst. & Gynae.
592
18th & 19th March, 2010
5
Vinothan J.S.
General Surgery
591
18th & 19th March, 2010
6
Ghodake Nishant Bapu
Der.,Vene & Leprosy
585
18th & 19th March, 2010
7
Santha Lakshmi A.
Anaesthesiology
574
18th & 19th March, 2010
8
Raghava A.
Anaesthesiology
574
18th & 19th March, 2010
9
Priyadharsini R.P.
Pharmacology
505
5th April, 2010
10
Suguna E.
Community Medicine
472
5th April, 2010
11
Aravinthan S.
Anatomy
443
21st April, 2010
12
Gopinath M.
Physiology
430
21st April, 2010
6b. The respondent would state that from the details provided above, it is clear that the last seat in the clinical discipline had been opted by the candidate with 472 marks and even if the petitioner had attended counselling on 05.04.2010 in view of her rank in the merit list, she could not have opted for a seat in the clinical discipline. If the petitioner had attended the counselling on 05.04.2010, 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 in any of the disciplines of M.D. Biochemistry or M.D. Physiology vide Memorandum dated 08.05.2010 issued by the Institute. But, she did not come forward to opt for a seat. Vide letter dated 13.05.2010, she requested to allot a seat in the clinical branch and for additional details regarding the allotment of M.D. Seats under the SC quota. The candidate was provided with the details vide letter dated 20.05.2010 and was also required to attend the counselling on 28.05.2010 and opt for a seat as per her merit ranking. It was also clearly stated in the letter that the petitioner was not eligible for a seat in the clinical discipline based on the marks obtained in the entrance examination. The petitioner did not attend the counselling held on 28.05.2010 to opt for a seat. The respondent had fully complied with the orders of this Court dated 22.04.2010 and 30.04.2010 and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner, who had secured 450 marks, belonging to SC category was to be called for the counselling on 05.04.2010. But, she did not receive any communication, which is most arbitrary and discriminatory. Those candidates, who secured marks upto 549 have been called for the first counselling and the candidates, who obtained 448 onwards have been called for the second counselling. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible for a clinical seat in the M.D. Course.
8. The said contention has been refuted by the learned Additional Solicitor General contending that the ranking of the petitioner in the SC category-wise merit list of eligible candidates is 317 and as regards the clinical discipline, the first three candidates were provided with seats and their marks were 643, 628 and 605. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim is not in the spirit of selection process. He would further contend that the petitioner was given all opportunity and information sought for by her. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the petitioner has been deprived of her opportunity.
9. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material documents available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed M.B.B.S course and internship. She also belongs to SC category. She appeared for the entrance examination for admission to M.D. Course for the academic year 2010-2011 and secured 450 marks. It is seen from the records that there was a counselling for various disciplines, both for clinical as well as non-clinical. The counselling was held on 18.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 and thereafter, an extended counselling was held on 05.04.2010, which was also hosted in the website on 20.03.2010 and the candidates were informed accordingly. However, the candidates were called for the counselling on a subsequent date, namely, 21.04.2010.
11. From the records, it is revealed that clinical disciplines consist 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 for clinical seats are way above the petitioner, as detailed below:
Sl. No.
Name of Discipline
Category
Marks
Number of Seats
1
M.D. Community Medicine
UR
UR
SC
667
634
472
3
2
M.S. Ophthalmology
UR
OBC
INST
666
662
619
3
3
M.D. Radiotherapy
UR
660
1
12. The petitioner claims that she secured 450 marks in the entrance examination. A perusal of the material documents would reveal that the candidates, who secured 574 and 472 marks had opted for seats in the clinical discipline based on the merit ranking in the entrance examination under the SC category. The two candidates, who had secured 443 and 430 marks, which are less than 450 marks of the petitioner had opted for M.D. Anatomy and M.D. Physiology due to non-availability of seats in clinical discipline. Since the petitioner did not appear for the extended counselling held on 05.04.2010, she was not called for the counselling held on 21.04.2010. Based on the roster point and the merit ranking, one seat in M.D. Anatomy was opted by the candidate, who secured 443 marks and one seat in M.D. Physiology was opted by the candidate, who secured 430 marks, under SC category. Had the petitioner appeared for the counselling on 21.04.2010, she would have had an option to opt for any seat in M.D. Anatomy or M.D. Physiology. The petitioner, based on the merit ranking in the entrance examination and the ranking under the SC category could not have opted for a seat in the clinical discipline.
13. In the course of hearing the matter, the respondent produced a copy of the proceedings in No.Edn.11(1)/SJ/2010, dated 08.05.2010, wherein, it is stated that in pursuance of the orders of this 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 a seat in any one of the disciplines namely, M.D. (Biochemistry) and M.D. (Physiology) and that she should convey her option, in writing, within two days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it would be meant that she is not interested in the offer and the same will be treated as withdrawn without any further correspondence.
14. On instruction from the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has the right to claim M.D. General Medicine or any other clinical discipline. Though, the petitioner has come before this court with a prayer directing the respondent to provide a seat in M.D. Course, she has not made it clear as to whether the seat sought by her has to be provided either in the clinical discipline or in the non-clinical discipline. While examining the above position, it is seen that the petitioner’s marks and ranking are below the clinical discipline and she is entitled only for non-clinical discipline and the respondent has rightly offered a seat to the petitioner in M.D. Bio-chemistry or M.D. Physiology.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is directed 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 copy of this order. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to seek admission in any one of the said non-clinical disciplines, it is open to the respondent to fill up the seat, considering the schedule of medical admission without any further delay.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.
Index : Yes Internet : Yes 19.08.2010 abe/ar To : The Director, Jawharlal Nehru Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry. V. DHANAPALAN,J. abe/ar Order in W.P. No.8360 of 2010 Dated: 19.08.2010