Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Lastly, Mr.Saini submits that in case the respondents decide to exercise the said discretion in favour of ST candidates after the second counselling is over, it would be of no benefit to ST candidates as all the roster point seats reserved for them, shall stand transferred to other categories including the General Category.

6. I have heard Mr.R.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr.T. Singhdev, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Ms.Anita Sahani, Advocate for respondent no.3.

8. Mr.T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2, also reiterates the submissions made by Mr.Bhardwaj, and states that the discretion vested in respondent no.1, cannot be exercised merely because the petitioner or any other candidate wants admission in one particular University. He submits that the aim of the proviso is to ensure adequate representation of ST/SC candidates in PG Medical Courses but that does not imply that the respondent no.1 should exercise the said discretion merely to enable the petitioner to take admission in one particular University or course.