DR. MANOJ KUMAR GOYAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & 2 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs (i) that the respondents be directed to publish the waiting list of those candidates including the petitioners who have opted for the same in the counselling held on 9.7.2004 for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 so that it should be known to all the candidates and that will enable them to take their future course of action, (ii) they be directed to intimate the petitioners about the seats in the waiting list, (iii) they be further directed to fill up the vacant seats whenever any seat falls vacant for one or the other reason, (iv) they be further directed to hold counselling in respect of 13 seats of Assistant Surgeon Quota by converting them into unreserved category, and (v) they be further directed to hold counselling for the year 2005 and 2006 separately in respect of the waiting list candidates. The petitioners' case is that they appeared in the Pre -P.G. Examination Course held on 22nd May 2004 for the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 conducted by respondent No.2. The result was declared on 26.05.2004 and the petitioners secured ranks as mentioned in para 5.3 of the petition. The counselling was to be conducted on 29th & 30th May 2004, hut on account of judicial intervention the same could not be conducted. But, ultimately the counselling was held on 9th July 2004. The petitioners were called in counselling, but during the counselling as they were not getting the subjects of their choice that is why they preferred to remain in the waiting list of 2005 -2006 so, as and when any seat falls vacant, then they can get the subject of their own choice, but the respondents are not publishing the waiting list, they are not informing the petitioners about their exact position and even they are not coming forward to tell that the petitioners will be considered against the vacancies which will arise in the year 2005 and 2006.

(2.) ON the other hand, return has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it has been mentioned that the last date of counselling was 9th July 2004, on that day all the seats were filled up and by 5 pm waiting list stood lapsed. Moreover, the petitioners had not given in writing for remaining in the waiting list. There is no provision in the Rules regarding the conversion of the Assistant Surgeon Quota in the general category seats. Since the waiting list has lapsed, the petitioners cannot be invited for the counselling for the year 2005 and 2006 and the same will be against the provisions of the Rule 11 of the Rules of Examination 2004. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in which it has been mentioned that it is incorrect to say that he petitioners have not opted for the waiting list. Even at the time of counselling the petitioners had filled up a form and they had put their signatures on it indicating in writing for remaining in the waiting list. The counselling committee had also put their signatures on the form confirming this. The same waiting list containing ranks and roll numbers of the candidates was displayed at the time of counselling. Every single candidate who attended the counselling is a witness to this fact as the waiting list has been seen by all the candidates. In the counselling, the committee prepared the waiting list (Annexure -R/3). It must be deemed that the counselling committee prepared the list under rule 10.16; otherwise there was no purpose for preparing waiting list and obtaining the same. It is submitted that 36 candidates have opted for 2005 and 2006 sessions as shown in the waiting list (Annexure -R; 3) filed by respondents and the petitioners are amongst them. Once having accepted this position of the waiting list and the right of the opted candidates, respondents cannot take contrary stand in the petitioners case.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Based on the pleadings of parties and arguments advanced by their counsel, following questions arise for decision of this Court: