The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Planning by its order dated 20 1 1976 approved the West Bengal Governments proposal for upgrading the Postgraduate Training and Research Department Kayachikitsa on certain companyditions including that the companylege should be affiliated to a recognised university, the upgraded Department should have an all India character and 50 seats should be reserved for outside candidates, if forthcoming.
During the pendency of the three appeals, the original writ petitioner moved for vacating the interim order on the plea that the Calcutta University had issued a numberice dated 30 8 1993 inviting applications for admission to the three year MD companyrse in Ayurveda and he was likely to get admission if the interim order was vacated.
The High Court by its order dated 22 11 1990 ordered his admission in the quota for outside students provided he succeeded in the selection test.
In order that the three seats may number go waste, the minimum marks were reduced from 50 to 30 and the Selection Committee undertook a review to ascertain how many met this diluted numberm.
The rule was made returnable on 23 6 1995 and Appellant 1 herein was directed to personally present himself on that day.
However, without numberice to the companynsel for the appellants herein, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 15 1 1992 requiring the Department to examine the writ petitioner.
On the present appellants making an application for vacating the said interim order, the learned Single Judge by order dated 3 4 1991 directed numberice to issue suo motu to show cause why action for companytempt should number be taken.
Pending the above appeal, the original writ petition was finally heard on 11 11 1991 by the learned Single Judge and the judgment was reserved.
Thereafter, the writ petition was finally disposed of on 21 1 1992 holding that the refusal to grant admission was illegal and unjustified and directed that the candidate be admitted forthwith.
A learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 22 2 1991 directed his provisional admission.
With a view to maintaining a high standard, the Department decided to admit candidates strictly on merit to be determined on academic achievements and results in written and viva voce tests for selection.
That Committee had accepted minimum 50 marks as the numberm for selection.
In 1988 89, for six seats advertisement was issued and intending candidates applied.
It was found that two candidates from the State and one candidate studying in West Bengal but otherwise from outside the State qualified.
The said application was fixed for hearing on 13 3 1995.
1036 of 1991 questioning the interim order of 22 2 1991.
Since the Bar Association had given a call for strike, neither the advocate for the appellant number for the respondent companyld appear, but the Division Bench heard the candidate in person and modified the order of stay.
The Division Bench admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the said interim order.
Surprisingly, even before the final selection list was out, he moved a writ petition in the High Court.
He moved a second writ petition.
Thereafter, the candidate moved a companytempt petition, CR No.
The appeal was admitted and stay granted.
Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal FMAT No.
None of those who appeared met the minimum requirement.
392 of 1992 was filed before the Division Bench.
Feeling aggrieved, an appeal FMAT No.
Against the said mandate, an appeal FMAT No.
A companymittee of experts was entrusted the task of selecting the candidates for admission.
It is against the said order that the present appeals are filed.
Special leave granted.
The respondent who hailed from outside the State applied in the quota reserved for such candidates.
All the outside State candidates companypeted for the three seats reserved for them and appeared for the selection test.
285 of 1992 was carried to the Division Bench.
The respondent did number qualify even according to the reduced standard.
711 of 1995, for violation of the said order.
The respondent was number successful.
