Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Sahithya K vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 December, 2014

Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit

  WP(C) 930/2014
                                                        1

  ITEM NO.54                                   COURT NO.6                   SECTION X

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                                  Writ Petition (Civil)      No.930 of 2014

  SAHITHYA K AND ANR                                                         Petitioner(s)

                                                       VERSUS

  STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR                                                Respondent(s)

  (With appln. (s) for directions and office report)

  Date : 08/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

  CORAM :
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT


  For Petitioner(s)                     Mr. K. Vijayan, Sr. Adv.
                                        Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv.
                                        Mrs. Vandana Sinha, Adv.
                                        Mr. L. K. Pandey, AOR

  For Respondent(s)                     Mr.   Rakesh Dwievedi, Sr. Adv.
                                        Mr.   Subramonium Prasad, AAG
                                        Mr.   M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
                                        Mr.   Santha Kumaran, Adv.
                                        Ms.   S. Janani, Adv.

                                        Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv.
                                        Mr. S. Nithin, Adv.
                                        Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR

                                        Mr. B. Balaji, AOR

                                        Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR
                                        Ms. Amandeep kaur, Adv.
                                        Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.

                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Signature Not Verified
                                                O R D E R

Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2014.12.09 18:59:39 IST Reason: Heard Mr. K. Vijayan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, WP(C) 930/2014 2 along with Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, leaned counsel for the Medical Council of India and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Chennai Medical College Hospita & Research Centre.

Regard being had to the interim orders that have been passed by this Court from time to time in respect of these cases which pertain to 69% reservation in the medical admission in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is directed that the petitioners shall be considered by the State of Tamil Nadu within a period of one week for the purpose of finding out whether if the fifty percent reservation in medical admission had been followed, whether they would have got the admission in M.B.B.S. course. If the answer would be in the affirmative, the petitioners, Minor Sahithya K. and Minor Ganapathinarayanan L. shall be allowed by their respective colleges, namely, the respondent No.6 – Sri Ramakrishna Dental College & Hospital and the respondent No.5, Rajah Muthiah Dental College & Hospital, to obtain all the documents and shall be transferred to Chennai Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, the respondent No.3 herein, to take admission in the M.B.B.S. course.

Be it noted, we have passed this order as we have been apprised that the course contents of B.D.S. and M.B.B.S. is quite similar for certain period.

Let the matter be listed on 17th December, 2014.

Be it clarified, this order has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the M.C.I. and, in any case, when this Court is directing for change of stream because of the fact situation, and hence, no authority can WP(C) 930/2014 3 have any objection and the petitioners shall enjoy all benefits of change of stream from B.D.S. to M.M.B.S. course and the respondent No.3, namely, Chennai Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, cannot be found at fault for any reason whatsoever by any authority.

                 (Chetan Kumar)                            (H.S. Parasher)
                  Court Master                               Court Master