Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Nancy vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Amjad Ahtesham Sayed, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Dr. Nancy Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
.
CWP No. 7260/2022 01.11.2022 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4- University.
Dr. Parveen Sharma (Controller of Exams) for respondent No.4-University, present in person. CWP No. 7260/2022 & CMP No.14511/2022 Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner's contention is that the respondents have not adhered to the roster during first round of counselling for admission to the post-graduate courses (MD/MS/DNB) in the colleges of the State. In the 40 point roster, the 4th point in the faculty of General Medicine was kept for General Duty Officer (in-service candidate) belonging to Scheduled Tribe category (ST). The petitioner, an applicant for post-graduate courses in the State Colleges had applied as General Duty Officer (in- service candidate) belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. Faculty of General Medicine was her second option. Candidates above her in the category-wise merit-list (ST) had not opted for this faculty. Petitioner was next in order of merit. Yet the roster point in question was not allocated to her during first round of counselling. The submission is that the 4 th roster ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:19 :::CIS point in the faculty of General Medicine has actually not been allocated to any General Duty Officer candidate belonging to .
Scheduled Tribe category. It has been urged that the roster point is lying vacant. Therefore, the petitioner in order of merit in Scheduled Tribe Category was required to be allocated the seat at roster point No.4 in the faculty of General Medicine, during first round of counselling.
3. r Dr. Parveen Sharma (Controller of Exams) Atal Medical and Research University H.P. remained present in the Court and has explained the working of roster and allocation of seats during the first round of counselling. It has been submitted that there has been no deviations from the roster. The respondents had carried out counselling strictly in terms of 40 point running roster. On the basis of this roster, options of candidates as per their category wise merit were considered for allocating available seats to them in different faculties and colleges. Every roster point has been matched with availability of that category seat in the roster and in the colleges. A candidate has right to get admission in particular specialization, if as per his category merit & preference, the seat is available in the college. The candidate will not get specific branch, if his choice does not match with the seats available in that category. Once a particular seat is alloted on a particular roster point then that roster point gets exhausted. ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:19 :::CIS
4. It has been further submitted by the respondents that in case of petitioner, in order of her merit, she could not .
get the seat in General Medicine at 4 th roster point. This is because of operation of the roster. By way of an example, it was explained by Dr. Parveen Sharma that the merit list of Scheduled Caste category was prepared separately. First roster point (Roster Point No.28) in the 40 point running roster fell to the specialty of Anatomy and was meant for an in- service candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. One Sh. Amit Kumar at rank No.1 of Scheduled Caste category was considered against this roster point. He gave his first option in the faculty of General Surgery. Seat was available in the faculty of General Surgery for the in-service candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. So Sh. Amit Kumar, who was called at roster point No.28 (1st point in 40 point running roster) in faculty of Anatomy for a seat belonging to in-service Scheduled Caste Category candidate was actually allocated the seat in General Surgery meant for in-service Scheduled Caste applicant. In this way, the Roster Point No.28 in faculty of Anatomy was exhausted. In similar manner all other roster points in different faculties were filled up based on the order of merit of candidates, the options exercised by them & availability of the opted seat in the colleges. In similar manner, Roster Point No.4 (in question in this petition) in faculty of General Medicine was meant for in- ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:19 :::CIS service candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category. One Sh. Vivek Kumar, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe .
Category was considered against this roster point in order of his category wise merit. He was above the petitioner in category wise merit list. He gave his option for faculty of General Surgery. Seat was available for his category in General Surgery and was accordingly allocated to him. In this manner, roster point No.4 in faculty of General Medicine was exhausted by allocating the seat in General Surgery to Vivek Kumar. The respondents submitted that in previous years also, the roster was maintained & operated in like wise manner.
5. From the above submissions, prima-facie it appears that the respondents have adhered to the 40 point running roster during counselling. Allocation of particular seat in a particular faculty to a particular candidate will inter-alia depend on who are above in merit to that candidate in the category wise merit list, the options exercised by those higher ranking candidates, allocation of seats to them, exhaustion of roster points, the availability of seats in colleges etc. At this stage, it appears that the roster points meant for candidates belonging to different categories have been filled up by the respondents by considering the candidates from that very category in order of their merit. After taking into consideration the options exercised by them, the seats have been allocated ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:19 :::CIS to them keeping in view the availability of seats as per their options. Specific roster point in question in the present .
petition has been exhausted by the respondents during first round of counselling. Hence, presently no case for grant of interim relief for staying the second round of counselling is made out. We have also been apprised that time is of essence for completion of counselling. In the interest of justice, we, however, order that the counselling being conducted by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the instant petition. As prayed for, reply to the petition be filed by the respondents within two weeks.
List on 19.11.2022.
( A.A. Sayed ) Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge 1st November, 2022(Rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:19 :::CIS