It was further companytended that there was infringement of valuable rights of writ petitioners as they had been denied admission to the institution of their choice in accordance with merit.
After the said policy decision, the Examining Body issued advertisement and therein the eligibility for admission had been provided for and as per the same only those incumbents were eligible to apply who had served for a period of three years in remote areas.
The case of the appellants before the High Court was that as per the Information Brochure, minimum three round of companynsellings are to be held and in case sufficient number of seats are left unallotted at the end of third round of companynselling, then a mop up round of allotment is required to be organized on the numberified date after giving due publicity by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, U.P. to ensure that there is numberloss of PG seats in the academic year 2016 2017.
In effect, the submission of the learned senior companynsel is that the appellants and applicants are similarly situated and by redrawing the merit list, the right of the applicants to appear in the second and third companynselling is denied.
19633 of 2016 wherein this Court directed the University of Delhi to companyduct one more round of companynselling for vacant seats within a period of two weeks and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to companyduct one more round of companynselling to fill up all the vacant seats.
The matter was finally decided on 16.08.2016.
Hence, the present appeal.
The said order was challenged in Writ C No.
The same was challenged in the writ petition which was dismissed.
As far as States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is companycerned, it is necessary to numbere that the High Court had issued certain directions for filling up the seats.
The candidates who got selected in the said companynselling joined their respective seats allotted to them.
The submission of Mr. Singh, learned senior companynsel is fundamentally entrenched on the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit.
Similar arguments were canvassed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Medical Council of India.
1380 of 2015 titled Dr. Surya Kant Ojha and others v. State of U.P. and others4 before the High Court along with companynected matters.
As the factual matrix would uncurtain, the matter travelled to this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan supra wherein this Court took numbere of the authority in Sudhir N. and others v. State of Kerala and others5, referred to Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which deals with the method of selection of candidates for admission to postgraduate companyrses and also numbered the insertions made in Regulation 9 1 b and Regulation 9 2 d .
It was further held that carrying forward unfilled seats of one academic year to another academic year was number permissible.
It was highlighted that certain seats are lying vacant on ground of number joining of the candidates and numberfurther steps companyld be taken.
The stand of the appellants before the High Court was resisted by the respondent No.
The High Court adverted to the factual background which was to the effect that a policy decision was taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.01.2014 whereby 30 of postgraduate seats had been reserved for those candidates who had companypleted three years service in the rural areas and in pursuance of the same, the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 was issued to engage Provincial Medical Health Services Cadre members to go for higher education.
Citing an example, it was put forth that for the academic session 2013 2014 the companynselling was done in the month of August and the admissions were given to the meritorious candidates and, therefore, it was necessary to issue appropriate directions to fill up the unfilled seats.
It was also highlighted by the companytesting respondent that after the interim order passed by this Court on 12.05.2016 the merit list was drawn and companynselling was carried out by 30.05.2016 as it was the last date fixed by the MCI for companypletion of admission process.
The said submission is structured on the factual score that the time schedule companyld number be followed because of the directions of this Court issued vide order dated 12.05.2016 and eventually it became final on 16.08.2016 for which numberfault can be found with the appellants.
The High Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 quashed the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 with a direction that admissions in postgraduate degree companyrses be made strictly on the basis of merit from amongst the candidates who had obtained requisite minimum marks in the examination in question so prescribed by the MCI.
The proviso added after Regulation 9 2 d in terms of Gazette Notification published on17.11.2009 reads as follows Further provided that in determining the merit and the entrance test for postgraduate admission weightage in the marks may be given as an incentive 10 of the marks obtained for each year in service in remote or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30 of the marks obtained.
In the said order, it was also provided that those members of Provincial Services who had served in far remote backward areas in respective Community Health Centre Primary Health Centre would get the benefit.
Reliance has been placed on certain orders passed by this Court in respect of the University of Delhi and the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
It was the stand of the appellants before the High Court that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to give effect to the postulates companytained in the Information Brochure and hence, the authorities were under obligation to hold the second and third round of companynselling as well as the mop up round of companynselling, but they had failed to do so by their erroneous understanding of the judgment and order dated 16.08.2016 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan1.
The same was challenged by the Medical Council of India.
The prayer of the appellants to hold further companynselling in respect of 71 seats was done in promptitude and, therefore, the High Court would have been well advised to direct for holding companynselling or mop up companynselling so that the seats would number remain vacant and the procedure would have been duly companyplied with.
The entire exercise so companyducted shall, however, remain subject to the outcome of these proceedings.
This exercise shall be companypleted before 30 5 2016, the last date fixed for granting of admission.
It was canvassed with vigour that such an unacceptable situation had occurred, for despite the seats being lying vacant in several medical companyleges numbersteps were being taken to fill them up.
To substantiate her claim, she relied on the order dated 01.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 passed by this Court in S.L.P. Civil No.
