Allahabad High Court
Shruti Garg vs Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj ... on 17 August, 2012
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39997 of 2012
Petitioner :- Shruti Garg
Respondent :- Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Medical University And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.N. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- Anurag Khanna
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner appeared in the 2010 C.P.M.T. and qualified whereafter she was admitted in the B.A.M.S. Course which she pursued for two years. She made a fresh attempt in the C.P.M.T. 2012.
Her contention is that she had surrendered her course of B.A.M.S. on 12th January, 2012. Learned counsel contends that this was in conformity with Rule 7 of the eligibility rules for C.P.M.T. 2012 Examinations.
The said rule is quoted herein under:-
^^vH;FkhZ dEI;wVjhd`r vkosnu&i= (Computerized OMR Application Form) esa nh x;h ?kks"k.kk (Declaration) ij fo'ks"k /;ku nsaA os vH;FkhZ ftUgksusa lh-ih-,e-Vh-&2012 ds iwoZorhZ o"kksZa esa lh-ih-,e-Vh- ds ek/;e ls fdlh ikB~;dze esa izos'k fy;k Fkk vkSj izos'k izkIr djus ds 90 fnu ds vUnj viuh lhV ugha R;kxh Fkh] lh-ih-,e-Vh-&2012 esa lfEefyr gksus ds fy, vgZ ugha gSA
os vH;FkhZ ftUgksusa 90 fnu ds vUnj viuh lhV R;kx nh Fkh muds fy, ?kks"k.kk i= ¼izek.k i=&4½ vius iwoZ esa fd, x;s gLrk{kj lfgr vkosnu i= ds lkFk Hkstuk vfuok;Z gS rFkk bls vks-,e-vkj- i= (OMR Sheet) ds lkFk uRFkh u djsa rFkk mldh ,d izfr dkmaflfyax ds le; ykuk vfuok;Z gksxkA^^
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examinations by the respondents and she has also been permitted counselling where she has sought admission on the basis of her rank which is 6th in the 2012 examinations.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seat of B.A.M.S. course has been surrendered 90 days prior to admission sought in the M.B.B.S. Course, 2012 and therefore the denial of the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid rule is erroneous and unjustified.
Sri Anurag Khanna for the respondent University submits that the aforesaid argument is incorrect, inasmuch as, the surrender of the previous seat of 2010 had to be made within 90 days of the admission in B.A.M.S. Course.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused Rule 7 on which reliance is placed by both sides, the disqualification and ineligibility is incurred if the surrender is not made within 90 days of the admission in the course where the candidate was previously admitted. The rule is explicitly clear. There is no challenge to the vires of the aforesaid rule. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2012
Sahu
