Gujarat High Court
Rathod Sneh Rajendrakumar vs The Admission Committee For ... on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/144/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21545 of 2023
==========================================================
RATHOD SNEH RAJENDRAKUMAR
Versus
THE ADMISSION COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL POST GRADUATE
MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL COURSES
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 14/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
record.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing
the Writ Petition, seeking a direction against the Admission
Committee for Professional Post-graduate Medical Educational
Courses to fill up the stray vacancy by following the Gujarat
Professional Post-graduate Ayurved and Homeopathy Medical
Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission) Rules, 2018. The
prayer before the learned Single Judge was to permit the petitioners
to be admitted against the vacant seats after completion of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/144/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
admission process, by the last date, i. e. 16.12.2023 fixed by the
Admission Committee. The petitioners herein have approached the
Writ Court by filing the Writ Petition on 18.12.2023.
3. On a query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein had participated
in four rounds of counseling, but could not secure admission.
However, the assertion is that pursuant to the order dated
13.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.19497 of 2023, the candidates like the petitioners
had been restrained from participating in the counseling, which was
held under the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the
aforesaid case, for the reason that only those candidates, who have
qualified as per AIA-PGET criteria and who have not applied before
the Admission Committee for admission to P. G. Courses, were
permitted to participate in the admission process in view of sub rule
(1)(viii) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2018, which governs the admission
process. The contention is that the petitioners have been non-suited
on account of the direction contained in the judgment and order
dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and hence,
have no option, but to approach this Court.
4. Taking note of the above contentions, suffice it is note that
the petitioners herein did not come forward to challenge the rider
put in place by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order
dated 13.12.2023. Moreover, the admission process came to an end
on 16.12.2023, which was admittedly the last date fixed by the
Admission Committee for all vacancies including stray vacancy. No
admission has been taken after 16.12.2023. On the plea of the
petitioners that the vacancy still remains after completion of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/144/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
admission process and hence, the admission process be reopened
and the petitioners be considered for admission against the stray
vacancy does not appeal to us, for the simple reason that the
admission process is to be brought to its logical end at one or other
point of time and cannot be permitted to be continued in perpetuity
till the last vacancy is filled.
5. For the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of
the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
