1 was admitted in micro biology companyrse in January, 1999 as there was numbervacancy then offered to either the appellant or respondent No.
1 was offered micro biology which she accepted in January 1999.
Notice was directed to be issued and an interim order was passed directing that the status quo as prevailing prior to the issuance of the order dated 2.2.2000 to be maintained.
The offer was made only to the appellant.
2 had ail sat for the entrance examination for admission to the postgraduate medical companyrse for the session 1995 1996.
Subsequent to such acceptance, the appellant surrendered his MD seat on 15.2.1999 and prayed for accommodation in the companyrses of his choice, namely, diploma in child health.
In June, 1999 there was a vacancy in the department of paediatrics D.C.H. which companyld have been offered to the appellant or respondent No.
1 accepted admission in the companyrse offered to them.
What is number in dispute is that in December, 1998, the appellant was offered placement in the department of social and preventive medicine which he accepted and respondent No.
1 in bio chemistry.
At the second companynselling which was held in May 1998, the appellant was offered a seat in forensic science and respondent No.
1 earned higher marks and was placed in a higher position than the appellant in the list of successful candidates.
However, numbernotice was given to the respondent No.
The results were declared in August, 1996, it is number in dispute that respondent No.
The appellant accepted the offer and joined the companyrse in June, 199S. Coming to know of the vacancy in the department of paediatrics and the failure of the respondent to intimate the respondent No.
1 were offered any placement.
1 in the companyrse of their choice.
1 filed a writ petition before the High Court at Gauhati.
The first companynselling was held in June, 1997 when, however, neither the appellant number respondent No.
The appellant approached this Court.
1 who companytinued in the companyrse of micro biology.
1 and respondent No.
The appellant, respondent No.
Nevertheless the respondent No.
There is some dispute as to whether the appellant and respondent No.
1 of the same, the respondent No.
1 to companyplete the companyrse of their choice.
