PG medical seats: SC upholds Centre's rules

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, AUG. 15. The Supreme Court, in the `post-graduate medical courses-admission' case, has upheld the validity of relevant rules framed by the Centre on March 30, 1994, which provided that the allotment of subject (speciality) and college of study made on the basis of option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be permitted to change the subject or the college. The rules also stipulated that a candidate who does not exercise his option at the time of counselling will be kept in the `waiting list' and if, at any subsequent stage a seat falls vacant, the same shall be allotted on the basis of the option exercised by those who are in the waiting list.

``It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period,'' the Bench said.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu dismissed a group of connected appeals from certain aggrieved candidates against the verdict of a Division Bench of the Allahabad HC which took the same view, relying on the decisions of the Full Bench of the Delhi HC and the Full bench of the Punjab and Haryana HC in the cases of Dr. Veena Gupta (1994) and Anil Jain (1998), respectively. The Bench, which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, observed that ``the finding recorded by the Allahabad HC and Delhi HC in the Dr. Veena Gupta case and the Punjab and Haryana HC in the Anil Jain case is in accordance with the reason and stands the test of rationality.''

The grievance of the appellants was that if a ``choice subject'' like surgery or medicine was given up by a candidate and that seat fell vacant it might go to a candidate who was lower in rank in the `merit list'.

Adverting to this plea, the Bench noted that ``this is only a fortuitous circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list'' and ``such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of the rule.''

The verdict of the Division Bench of the Allahabad HC, affirmed by the Apex Court through this judgment, was rendered while setting aside an order of a single judge of the Allahabad HC.

The single judge had directed that ``when after the `first counselling' any subsequent counselling is decided to be held for allocation of `remaining seats' including those which have fallen vacant subsequent to the `first counselling', the same shall be notified to the public and the first date of each subsequent counselling will be reserved for the candidates who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who wish to change their seats and out of the candidates, who were allotted seats at the first counselling, who turn up for subsequent counselling on the first date which is reserved for such students, distribution of seats which have fallen vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be done according to merit'' and ``the change of seat to these students who have been allotted seats during the first and earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of seats which have fallen vacant after the first counselling and not of the left over seats.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Kashmir independence only way out: Hijazi
Next     : Voluntary agency for eco-friendly disposal