Allahabad High Court
Dr. Shivani Agarwal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 27 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1998ALL16, AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 16, 1998 ALL. L. J. 16, 1998 A I H C 680, 1997 (3) ALL WC 1379
ORDER R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Petitioner, who has appeared in Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the P.G.M.E.E. 1995 and qualified in the said examination, but according to her was illegally by passed and deprived of an opportunity of the allotment of post graduate medical courses/college, according to her ranking, filed the present petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction of suitable nature under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the record of the counsellings of the post graduate medical examination, 1995 held on 28-2-1996, 31-5-1996 and 5-7-1996, quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct the counselling again. Alternatively, she prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus commanding the respondents to allot a post graduate course to her in Radio Diagnosis or M.D. Gynecology or M.D. Pediatrics or M.D.S.P.M. or M.S. General Surgery, if necessary after creating an additional seal. Prayer to declare para G(iv) of Information Brochure of P.G.M.E.G. 1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) to be violative of the Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India has also been made, inasmuch as, the same does not provide for proper and effective mode of service of notices upon the candidates fixing the date and place of counselling.
2. The facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, arc that the petitioner passed her class XII C.B.S.C. Examination 1986 and obtained degree of M.B.B.S in the year 1992. Thereafter, she completed one year's internship from 4-9-1992 to 3-9-1993 successfully and a certificate of Medical Registration was also issued in her favour, as it is apparent from Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. Vide Government Order dated 28-9-1994 the State Govt. authorised L.L.R.M. Medical College for conducting entrance examination for post graduate medical courses in all Allopathy Medical Colleges of the State of U.P. for the year 1995. The Principal of the said college was designated as co-ordinator in the said examination petitioner also applied for appearing in the said examination as a general category candidate. She was assigned roll No. 702. Thereafter, she appeared in the said examination, result of which was declared in April, 1995. In which 1004 candidates qualified. The petitioner also qualified in the said examination and was placed at serial No. 368 in the merit list and after adjusting the reserved category candidates, she was placed at serial No. 406.
3. First Counselling of general category candidates of the said examination was held on 1 1-10-1995 in which the candidates from serial No. 1 to 356 were considered for the allotment of the post graduate course. Second counselling was conducted on 8-12-1995 in which candidates upto serial No. 373 of general category were considered for allotment. Third counselling of P.G.M.E.E. 1995 was directed to be held on 28-2-1996 as it is evident from the letter of Director General (contained in Annexure IV to the writ petition). However, one Vikram Agarwal filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 198 of 1996 in which the counselling scheduled to be held on 28-2-1996 was stayed, but the stay order was vacated before the said date. It was on 23-5-1996 that fourth counselling of the said examination was directed to be held on 31-5-1996, Fifth and last counselling is alleged to have been held on 5-7-1996 at Lucknow and not at Meerut. In the order dated 21-6-1996, contained in Annexure VII to the writ petition no reason for the change of the place venue of the counselling was, however, disclosed. Petitioner appeared in the first and second counsellings held on 11-10-1995 and 8-12-1995 but thereafter could not have any notice or knowledge about the dates, lime and places of the counsellings, consequently, could not appear in the said counsellings and the candidates, who were lower in ranking to the petitioner were allotted the subjects and colleges of their choice.
4. It is stated that the petitioner was legally entitled to appear in all counsellings of P.G.M.E.E. 1995 and to allotment of subject and college on the basis of the said examination but she was deprived of her right. She, therefore, made representations for ventilation at her grievances to the Director General and Principal Coordinator, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 13-8-1996 and I 4-8-1996 respectively, but no heed was paid to the said representations by the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, had no option but to approach this court and file the present petition for the above mentioned reliefs.
5. It would not be out of place to state that in the meanwhile petitioner appeared in P.G.M.E.E. 1996 with Roll No. 1700, result of which was declared on 2-5-1996 and was placed at serial number 396. It was in the second counselling of P.G.M.E.E. 1996 held on 16-7-1996 that the petitioner was allotted the course of M.D. (Physiology).
6. On behalf of respondents a counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that counsellings of P.G.M.E.E. 1995 was conducted by a post Graduate Selection Committee which included the Director General Medical Education and Training, U.P. Lucknow, 6 Principals of the State Medical Colleges and Principal of K.G. Medical College, Lucknow as well as Joint Director, Medical Education and Training. Dr. Usha Sharma Principal of L.L.R.M. Medical College Meerut was authorised to conduct P.G.M.E.E. 1995 at Meerut. After conducting said examination the notices for counsellings were published through press. It was stated that the petitioner appeared in the first and second counselling held on 11-10-1995 and 8-12-1995 respectively, in which candidates up to serial No. 373 were considered, but since the petitioner was lower in merit, she was not considered. Third counselling could not be held on the date fixed on account of the interim order granted by this Court, which was subsequently vacated and the third counselling was held on 31-5-1996, regarding which notices were pasted on the notice board of the College and also published through Press, T.V. and Radio on 25-9-1996. In the said counselling the petitioner did not appear, consequently, candidates lower in ranking to her were considered and given allotments. Fourth counselling was held on 5-7-1996 at Lucknow and the notice thereof, in the manner stated above, is alleged to have been given. It is admitted that petitioner appeared in second counselling of P.G.M.E.E. 19% in which she opted for M.D. (Physiology) at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad on 16-7-1996.
7. According to the case set up by the respondents petitioner had full knowledge and notice of the said counselling of P.G.M.E.E. 1995, but she did not appear in the same.
8. From the facts stated in the writ petition and also in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that in third, fourth and fifth counsellings of P.G.M.E.E. 1995 petitioner did not appear. Petitioner claims that she was not given due notice of the said counsellings. On the other hand, respondents claim that notice was published in newspapers etc. and also pasted on the notice board of the colleges as provided in the application form and Information Brochure supplied to the candidates.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she was legally entitled to participate in the counsellings held on the aforesaid dates, but she was deprived of her right and the candidates much below in ranking were allotted post graduate medical courses including courses which were not notified for the counsellings. It is alleged that as required under the law neither the dates nor places of the said counselling were notified in the press nor the personal notices were given to the candidates concerned. Therefore, the petitioner and other candidates were deprived of their right to participate in the said counsellings.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the mode and method of giving notices to the candidates regarding date and place of the counselling in the Information Brochure supplied to them with the application forms is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. He contends that personal notices to the candidates concerned who are entitled to take part in the counsellings and due publication of the notices in the newspapers having country wide circulation, at least in two issues (in English and Hindi languages) one after another is necessary, in as much as the examination in question is conducted for all the colleges in the State in which students from all (sic) over the local newspapers and the publication of the notice board of the College are not sufficient.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the stand taken by them in the counter affidavit, and contended that the notices in accordance with law and terms and conditions as indicated in Brochure were fulfilled and that it was obligatory for the candidates, including the petitioner to find out the dates and places of the counsellings. It has also been urged that the petitioner having already been allotted the course of M.D. (Physiology) on the basis of P.G.M.E.E. 1996 at M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, was estopped from contending that she was entitled to the allotment on the basis of P.G.M.E.E. 1995.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case.
13. The main questions for consideration, in the present case, are as to whether the petitioner, who was already allotted the course of M.D. (Physiology) at M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad on the basis of P.G.M.E.E. 1996 was entitled to the allotment of subject on the basis of the P.M.G.E.E". 1995 and as to whether notices fixing dates, time and places of counselling were published as provided in the Information Brochure supplied to the candidates, who were entitled to appear in the counselling and whether petitioner can be imputed knowledge of the dates and places of counsellings.
14. From the Information Brochure and application Forms of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 1995, it is evident that the candidates, who have passed M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Examination from Allopathy Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi and Gorakhpur and the Dental Faculty of K.G. Medical College, Lucknow and have completed rotatory compulsory internship by 1-5-1995 were eligible to appear in the said examination. The procedure for appearing in the said Examination and admission to post graduate Medical courses is governed by the Information Brochure and the application forms supplied to the candidates.
15. The relevant clauses of the INFORMATION BROCHURE AND APPLICATION FORM OF P.G.M.E.E. 1995 are extracted below :--
"A GENERAL As per Government of Uttar Pradesh Order No. 4596 Section 14/Five-180/94 dated 28-9- 1994, the L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut shall be conducting the Competitive Entrance Examination for selecting candidates for admission to post graduate medical/dental courses in the allopathic medical colleges of Uttar Pradesh viz. Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi and Gorakhpur and the Dental Faculty of K.G. Medical College, Lucknow for the year 1995.
(i) Candidates who have passed MBBS/BDS from Medical Colleges of Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi or Gorakhpur are eligible to appear in the examination.
(ii) .....
(iii) The eligible candidates who get selected through PGMEE 95 will be given admission on available seat in post-graduate courses on merit-cum-preference basis and shall be appointed as junior Residents.
(iv) A candidate who takes admission on the basis of PGMEE, 1995 will be debarred from appearing in subsequent P.G. entrance Examination of the State until he/she completes the course to which he/she has been admitted.
(v) The entrance examination for admission to all courses of all the above medical colleges for 1995 shall be held on 15th Jan. 1995 at Meerut.
C. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
The Competitive Entrance Examination shall be open to such candidates who :
(i) have passed the MBBS/BDS examination from any of the above medical colleges.
(ii) have completed rotatory compulsory internship or will complete the Internship by 01 May, 1995.
(iii) A Candidate who has already been admitted in any postgraduate degree and diploma course through P.G.M.E.E. 94 will not be eligible to appear in the P.G.M.E.E. 95 examination.
G. RESULT AND SELECTION :
(i) and (ii) .....
(a) to (e) .....
(iii) A combined merit list of candidates found eligible for admission to the post graduate medical course and shall be declared/published by the Principal-cum-Coordinator PGMEE 95 and submitted to the Director General of Medical Education and Training, U.P.
(iv) The allotment of course/college to the eligible candidates shall be made by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, U.P. on personal appearance of the candidate as per his/her merit and choice of course. The date and place of counselling, shall be notified through press and notice boards of the medical colleges. It will be the responsibility of the eligible candidates to check for these dales and appear for allotment of course/college by counselling. At the time of counselling the available seats in the different courses and colleges shall be displaced according to their merit and the candidates shall have the right to choose any one of the available seats at their rank. The same will be allotted to them. Candidate once allotted a seat shall not be allowed to change their option for any other seat.
(v) In case a candidate is unable to appear in person on a notified date for personal appearance, he/she can send his/her representative with an authority letter for allotment. The allotment made to the authorised representative shall be binding on the candidate.
(vi) to (ix) .....
Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 8 and Clause (a) of paragraph 13 of the 'APPLICATION FORM AND BULLETIN OF INFORMATION' of All India Entrance Examination and Admission to MD/MS/Diploma and MDS Courses 1997 published by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar New Delhi, are also relevant for the purposes of this case, which are reproduced below :--
"8. DECLARATION OF RESULTS
(i) The All India Institute of Medical Sciences will conduct the examination evaluate the answer scripts. Prepare the merit list/waiting list, as per the directions of the Supreme Court.
(ii) The results indicating the rank numbers against the Roll Nos. will be declared between 16th to 20th Feb. 1997 and will be published in the Newspapers particularly the Indian Express Statesman and other national dailies as per directions of the Supreme Court of India.
(iii) The candidates who figure in the merit list announced by the Institute shall be intimated individually about their rank obtained in the Entrance Examination. Please do not wait for the communication to be received by post. Look up the newspaper for your Rank No. So that you may be able to appear for selection of a seat on the notified date and time given in the Schedule (Appendix) II, as postal delays may lead to your non appearance on the notified date and time and subsequently forfeiture of your claim for a seat under All India Quota. The result shall also be displayed at the Institute for the benefit of the candidates.
13. ALLOTMENT ON PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
(a) The allotment of seats shall be made to the candidates through personal appearance. For personal appearance the candidates will be called in batches of 150 each day in order of merit as per the Schedule given in Appendix II. Any change in the schedule of allotment or the venue of allotment shall be published in the Newspapers. No separate intimation for persona! appearance will be sent to the candidates individually. The candidates for personal appearance should bring their Admit Card, rank letter and other related certificates including the Internship Completion Certificate, in original for verification. Candidates without the above documents in original are not eligible to participate in the allotment process."
16. It is not disputed that the candidates, who were qualified P.G.M.E.E. 95, were entitled to be admitted to post graduate courses in i.e. M.D./ M.S. of three years duration, Diploma courses of 2 years duration and M.D.S. course of 2 1/2 years duration. It is also apparent from Clause (iv) of Paragraph (A) of the aforesaid brochure that a candidates, who takes admission on the basis of PGMEE 1995 will be debarred from appearing in subsequent P.O. Entrance Examination of the State until he/she completes the course to which he/she has been admitted. Clause (i v) of Paragraph (G) of said Brochure also provides that candidate once allotted a seal shall not be allowed to change their option for any other seat. Petitioner appeared in PGMEE 1996. She was not admitted to any course on the basis of PGMEE 1995. She was, therefore, entitled to appear in the said examination and even after her admission/ allotment on the the basis of PGMEE 1996. Petitioner's admission/allotment on the basis of PGMEE-1996 cannot disqualify her from claiming admission on the basis of PGMEE 1995. She can claim her admission on the basis of PGMEE 1995, if she is not satisfied with subsequent allotment and does not wish to pcrsue her studies on the basis of the same. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30242 of 1995. Dr. Manoj Kumar Mittal v. State of U.P., wherein it was held as under :--
"In this case, the petitioner was allowed to appear and that was prior to a date when he got actual admission . Therefore, if he had appeared on being so eligible to appear the natural consequences follow that he will be entitled to all the benefits of his such appearance. Therefore, it cannot be said that since he was admitted subsequent to his appearance in PGMEE 94, that cannot be a disqualification for the purpose of his admission pursuant to his selection in PGMEE 95.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to get admission in the P.G. Medical Degree Course for the session pursuant to his selection in the 1995 examination."
17. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Dr. Manoj Kumar Mittal (supra).
18. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner having appeared in PGMEE 1996 and having been allotted the post graduation course on the basis of said examination was estopped from claiming her right of admission on the basis of PGMEE 1995 is apparently misconceived and cannot be accepted.
19. So far as the question of the publication of the date, time and place of counselling is concerned, from Clause (iv), of paragraph (G) referred to above it is apparent that the allotment of the courses to the eligible candidates was to be made by the Director General Medical Education U.P. on personal appearance of the candidates concerned according to their merit and choice of the courses. The date and place of counselling was to be notified through press and notice boards of the Medical Colleges. It is also provided that it was the responsibility of the eligible candidate to check the dates and place of counselling for the allotment of the course.
20. Undisputedly the candidates having passed M.B.B.S. from all Allopathic Medical Colleges of U.P. are entitled to appear in the aforesaid examination for their admission to the post graduate courses referred to above. The students of the said medical colleges consists of U.P. quota as well as external quota. Thus, the candidates, who are entitled to appear in the said examination are scattered and spread all over India. Thus the publication of the dates and places of the examination is required to be made through Newspapers having circulation throughout the country and not in the local newspapers. It is evident from the Bulletin of Information that All India Entrance Examination for admission to M.D.S. Course etc. referred to above, publication of notice required in the Newspapers particularly Indian Express, The Statesman and other national dailies as per direction of the Supreme Court of India.
21. In the present case, as it is evident from the statement of fact made in the counter affidavit that notice was published on the notice boards of the Colleges and one local Hindi newspaper of Meerut i.e. Amar Ujala and not in the national newspapers referred to above. From the orders of the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow contained in Annexures IV, V and VI it is evident that the copies of the notice fixing the date and place of counselling were sent to various authorities including Director of Information and Broadcasting, Director of Doordarshan, Akashwani, Lucknow and Editors of Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Poineer, Times of India etc. with request to publish the said notice, but free of costs.
22. There is nothing on the record to show that the notices fixing dates and places of counselling were published in any national newspaper or a newspaper having at least the circulation throughout the State of U.P. In paragraph No. 25 of the counter affidavit of Dr. Naresh Chandra, it was stated as under:--
"25. That the contents of paras 47 to 52 of the writ petition are denied as the notice for counselling for 5-7-1996 were sent to the press/ for telecast on T. V./radio as well as for display on notice board of the respective colleges."
23. In paragraph No. 33 of the counter affidavit it was stated that dates of the counselling were notified/displayed on the notice board of all State Medical Colleges. The said paragraph is reproduced below :--
"13. That in reply to para 65 of the writ petition, it is stated that the dates of counselling were notified/displayed on the notice board of all the State Medical Colleges and the petitioner is required to collect the information of counselling from the notice board."
24. In paragraph Nos. 13. 15 and 21 of the said counter affidavit it was stated that the information of dates regarding counselling were also notified by way of Television telecast and were duly published in various newspapers and through radio. The contents of the paragraphs Nos. 3 to 30 of the counter affidavit have been verified on the basis of the record but no record whatsoever has been produced in support of the said allegations. In the rejoinder affidavit the facts staled in paragraph Nos. 13, 15. 21 and 25 have been denied and it has been asserted that the notices of fixation of dates, place and time of counselling were never notified in accordance with law. Only news item appeared in the daily newspapper 'Ama Ujala' as it is evident from Annexures CA-2. CA-4, and CA-5 to the counter-
affidavit filed by Dr. R.M. Bajpai. The notices fixing dates, times and places of the counselling might have been sent to various authorities Director of Doordarshan/Akashwani and Editors of the newspapers mentioned in the notices but the same cannot be a proof of the factum of publication of the notices. As stated above, no documentary proof or other admissible evidence has been filed by the respondents to substantiate their plea that the notices were published in the press, (except the publication of aforesaid news items), in Television, radio or on the notice board of the Medical Colleges concerned. The same stand has been taken in the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. R.M. Bajpai as taken in the counter affidavit of Dr. Naresh Chandra. Even along with the counter affidavit of Dr. R.M. Bajpai, no documentary evidence has been filed to show that publication of the notice was made either by Television, Radio or in any national newspaper. Reliance has been placed on the "news items" not notices, published in the local news paper Amar Ujala dated 24-5-1996 and 3-7-1996 as well as on the 'news items' published in Dainik Jagran another local newspaper of Meerut dated 2-7-1996. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 53 of the said counter affidavit have also been sworn on the perusal of record. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that notices were not published in any mode as required under the law/rates framed for the counselling in question. The petitioner therefore cannot be attributed knowledge or notice of the dates and places of counsellings in question.
25. The next question for consideration is as to whether the publication of the news hem or of notices in a local newspaper or on the notice board can be said to be sufficient publication as required under Clause (IV) of paragraph No. G of Information brochure referred to above and if the said clause of paragraph G, under the facts and circumstances of the present case is legal and valid.
26. From the said clause it is apparent that the allotment of the courses to the eligible candidate was to be made by the Director General, Medical Education U.P. on personal appearances of the candidates concerned according to the merit and choice of the candidates. The dates and place of the counselling was to be notified through press and the notice boards of the medical colleges. It also provides that it was the responsibility of eligible candidates to check the dates and place for counselling of the allotment of the course. Admittedly the candidates having passed M.B.B.S. examination from all Allopathic Colleges of U.P. are entitled to appear in the aforesaid examination for their admission to the post graduate courses referred to above. The students of the said medical colleges consists of U.P. quota as well as external quota under the orders of the Supreme Court. The candidates, who are entitled to appear in the said examination are scattered arid spread all over country, thus, the publication of the dates and places of examination/counselling is required to be made by means of newspapers having circulation throughout the country, and not in the local newspapers.
27. It is evident from the Bulletin of Information that all India Entrance Examination for admission in M.B.B.S. courses etc. referred to above, publication of notices is required in the newspapers particularly in Indian Express, the Stateman and other national newspapers as per direction of the Supreme Court of India.
28. As stated above, the students from all over the country are entitled to participate in the examination. Admittedly no notice or even news of the counselling was ever published in any national newspaper. Clause (4) if interpreted to mean publication of news in local newspaper would be unreasonable and unjust and will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion the publication of notices in press as indicated in Clause (IV) of para G of the information brochure means publication of notices in national newspapers as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of all India examination.
29. In the case of Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, 1994 All LJ 1077, a Full Bench of this court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1991. Clause 3 of the said order provides for notification of the short term vacancies on the notice board of the institution while Clause V of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Educational Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, which provides procedure for ad hoc appointment of teachers, and requires that on receipt of the details of vacancy for publication through public advertisement at least in 2 newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. It was ruled that notification of vacancy on the notice board alone was not sufficient. The said vacancy was also required to be notified in 2 newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh besides other modes of publication, thus, the notification of vacancy on the notice board was held to be inadequate and insufficient.
30. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench the service of notices by pasting the same on the notice boards of the Colleges cannot be deemed sufficient service, upon the candidates concerned who are spread all over the country particularly when they are not required to stay in the College before or after declaration of result of PGMEE. The notices, therefore, are required to be published in the national newspapers English and Hindi at least for two days in reasonable gap between the date of publication of notices and the counselling to provide opportunity to all the candidates to participate in the examination of counselling. In the present case as staled above, except the news item that too in the local Hindi newspapers Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran and in small internal columns of newspapers, no notice was ever published in accordance with the law. The petitioner was, thus, deprived of an opportunity to appear in the counsellings referred to above.
31. The petitioner, as held above, was entitled to allotment of course on the basis of the examination PGMEE 1995 but she has been deprived of her right wholly unreasonably by the respondents and the candidates lower in raking to the petitioner have been allotted courses and colleges which is illegal and arbitrary. A reference in this; regard may be made to the following cases :--
1. Dr. A. Franklin Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 526 : (1994 AIR SCW 2891);
2. Km. Manila Srivastava v. Registrar. Departmental Examination, U.P., Allahabad 1994 (2) UPLBEC 895 (HC).
32. The admission of the candidates, who were lower in ranking to the petitioner, were liable to be set aside but under the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that the said students after their admission to various courses have been persuing their studies for more than one year. It will be inequitable to disturb the studies of the said students. In the similar circumstances, the Apex Court to the country has directed the authorities concerned to create additional seats and to admit the candidates in the classes/courses to which they were entitled to be admitted. A reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court :--
1. Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati (1983) 3 SCC 5l7 : (AIR 1983 SC 580);
2. Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 722 : (AIR 1981 SC 1127);
3. Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1009;
4. Udai Chand v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1 978 SC
765.
33. In Punjab Engineering College case (AIR 1983 SC 580) (supra), the Supreme Court has taken into consideration its earlier decision in the State of Kerala v. Km. T.P. Roshna (AIR 1979 SC 765), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487) and Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1981 SC 1009) and directed the authorities for relaxation of the rules, if possible by temporary increase in the number of seats to adjust the displaced candidates. Similar order was passed by the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1985) 3 SCC 22 : (AIR 1985 SC 1059).
34. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to create an additional seat in a Post Graduate Medical College and admit the petitioner in the Post Graduate Medical Course of her choice, pursuant to her selection in PGMEE 1995, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 2.
35. No order as to costs.