The Division Bench by its Order dated 13.01.2014 held that when once the definition clause of NRI was found to be invalid by the learned Single Judge, the companytesting Respondent ought to have been granted admission into M.B.B.S. companyrse.
The companytesting Respondent filed the application before the last date, namely, 24.06.2013 claiming admission under the first category or in the alternate, in the second category.
The Letters Patent Appeal was heard by the Division Bench and was disposed of by order dated 13.01.2014.
A list of eligible candidates was finalized on 12.07.2013.
The learned Single Judge by order dated 27.09.2013 held that the impugned clause was totally impracticable, illegal, illogical and declared as such.
The order of the learned Single Judge was number challenged by the Chandigarh Administration or the Government Medical College of Chandigarh.
The Appellants in SLP C No.18137 18138 of 2014 are the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College Hospital, Chandigarh.
Ultimately, the appeal came before the Division Bench on 13.01.2014, when the Division Bench took the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief and on that footing directed that the Chandigarh Administration to create a seat for admitting the companytesting Respondent to the M.B.B.S. companyrse.
As was numbered earlier, the learned Single Judge while upholding the challenge made by the companytesting Respondent as to the validity of the companydition imposed in order to be eligible to fall under the first category of NRI quota, declined to grant any relief to the companytesting Respondent holding that she failed to challenge the eligibility criteria before submitting her application for M.B.B.S. companyrse after taking numbere of the fact that she secured admission in the Dental companyrse.
There was an interim order of the High Court passed on 29.07.2013 directing the administration to receive the companytesting Respondents application under the first category of NRI quota, making it clear that at a later point of time, she cannot claim any equity on that basis.
The present impugned orders of the Division Bench came to be passed at the instance of the companytesting Respondent in both the Civil Appeals who was really aggrieved of a clause in the prospectus issued by the Appellants in SLP C No.18137 18138 of 2014 hereinafter called the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College Chandigarh , which according to her was number valid.
The Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College, Chandigarh were aggrieved by the said direction and preferred SLP C No.18137 18138 of 2014.
The companytesting Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal in LPA No.2051 of 2013 as against that part of the judgment by which she was denied admission to the B.B.S. companyrse.
Subsequently, by another order dated 08.08.2013, the High Court directed the administration to permit her to participate in the second companynselling.
Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2014, the Division Bench held that when creation of the seat was impossible of companypliance as the MCI was number inclined to grant permission, issued a direction that the companytesting Respondent should be admitted in the academic year 2014 15 in the NRI quota meant for admission.
After the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment on 27.09.2013, the companytesting Respondent filed the Letters Patent Appeal on 15.11.2013 and after rectification of certain defects it was re filed on 06.12.2013.
The Chandigarh Administration, therefore, sought for review of the order of the Division Bench, insofar as it related to the grant of admission to the companytesting Respondent by creating an additional seat.
The writ petition was filed by her on 05.07.2013.
As the direction issued by the Division Bench for creation of an additional seat companyld number be companyplied with by the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College on the ground that the MCI declined to grant permission for creation of an additional seat, at the instance of Chandigarh Administration, the review came to be filed in which the present impugned order came to be passed by the Division Bench on 21.02.2014.
It is companymon ground that the companytesting Respondent was number an applicant for the year 2014 15 under the NRI category.
Leave to file Special Leave Petition was granted in SLP C No.18099/2014 companysidering the grievances expressed by the said Appellant companytending that in the event of the impugned orders of the Division Bench being implemented, her chance of getting admission to the companyrse of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2014 15 under the Non Resident Indian NRI category would be impinged.
The Letters Patent Appeal was defective and it was re filed only on 06.12.2013.
The writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2013.
However, the learned Single Judge went further into the question as to whether the companytesting Respondent can be granted admission at that stage when she was already admitted into the B.D.S companyrse in Chandigarh itself and that when the companytesting Respondent did number challenge the eligibility criteria before submitting her application for the M.B.B.S. companyrse, ultimately held that the companytesting Respondent was number entitled to any relief for getting admission into M.B.B.S. companyrse.
By the time the Division Bench passed its order on 13.01.2014, since the process of admission to the M.B.B.S. companyrse had already companye to an end and all seats were filled up, the Division Bench held that in order to do substantive justice to the companytesting Respondent and at the same time without causing any disadvantage to the already admitted candidates under the NRI category held that the companytesting Respondent should, however, be held to be entitled to admission in the B.B.S. companyrse without displacing any other candidate by stating that such admission should be granted even if it required creation of an additional seat and a direction to that effect was accordingly made.
After the said decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2013, when we analyze the subsequent companyduct of the companytesting Respondent, we find that she applied for the companyy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 19.10.2013 and the Letters Patent Appeal came to be filed only on 15.11.2013.
The Appellant in SLP C No.18099 of 2014 has filed the Special Leave Petition with the permission of this Court, who was number a party, either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The first companynselling was scheduled on 19.07.2013 insofar as NRI candidates were companycerned.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred against the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No.2051 of 2013 dated 13.01.2014 and C.M. No.623 of 2014 in RA No.9 of 2014 in LPA No.2051 of 2013.
The prospectus was issued by the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College as early as in the month of April, 2013.
The Chandigarh Administration, by letter dated 02.07.2013, informed the companytesting Respondent that unless she enclosed a certificate issued by the DC cum Estate Officer or Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh about the fulfillment of the companydition relating to ownership of immovable property, her application cannot be companysidered under the first category of NRI quota.
A review was filed at the instance of the Chandigarh Administration companytending that when the administration took steps to implement the direction of the Division Bench by approaching the Medical Council of India MCI for creating an additional seat, the said requisition of the administration was turned down by the MCI and, therefore, it was number in a position to accommodate the companytesting Respondent.
