Chandra Sekhar Bhattacharjee Vs. Runumi Choudhury & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2001
Petitioner: Chandra Sekhar Bhattacharjee
Respondent: Runumi Choudhury & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2001
Judges: Ruma Pal & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2002
Head Note:
Education
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Admission to diploma in child health – Seat offered to appellant without notice to ~4~ Writ allowed by High Court – No interim orders were passed – Supreme Court directing status quo as on date of decision of writ by single judge, appellant having completed course. Appeal infructuous. Held that dismissal of appeal would entitle the respondent to benefit of decision of High Court. Law point left open. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 had all sat for the entrance examination for admission to the post-graduate medical course for the session 1995-1996. The results were declared in August, 1996. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 earned higher marks and was placed in a higher position than the appellant in the list of successful candidates. The first counselling was held in June, 1997 when, however, neither the appellant nor respondent no. 1 were offered any placement. At the second counselling which was held in May 1998, the appellant was offered a seat in forensic science and respondent no. 1 in bio-chemistry. There is some dispute as to whether the appellant and respondent no. 1 accepted admission in the course offered to them. What is not 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 was offered micro-biology which she accepted in January 1999. Subsequent to such acceptance, the appellant surrendered his MD seat on 15.2.1999 and prayed for accommodation in the courses of his choice, namely, diploma in child health. It may be mentioned that respondent no. 1 had also indicated her option for a diploma in child health. Nevertheless the respondent no. 1 was admitted in micro-biology course in January, 1999 as there was no vacancy then offered to either the appellant or respondent no. 1 in the course of their choice.
2. In June, 1999 there was a vacancy in the department of paediatrics (D.C.H.) which could have been offered to the appellant or respondent no. 1 to complete the course of their choice. However, no notice was given to the respondent no. 1 who continued in the course of micro-biology. The offer was made only to the appellant. The appellant accepted the offer and joined the course in June, 1999.
3. Coming to know of the vacancy in the department of paediatrics and the failure of the respondent to intimate the respondent no. 1 of the same, the respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court at Gauhati. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge who directed that fresh counselling should be held in respect of the vacant seat in the department of paediatrics. The decision of the learned single judge which was delivered on 2.2.2000 was upheld in appeal by the division bench on 7.3.2000. The appellant approached this Court. 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. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court also there was no interim order as a result of which the appellant continued to pursue the course for obtaining the diploma in child health (D.C.H.). He successfully completed the course in June, 2001. He has been granted the post-graduate diploma from department of paediatrics (D.C.H.) and this qualification has been registered in the office of Assam Council of Medical Registration on 17 July, 2001.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today it was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appeal has become infructuous as the appellant has been able to complete the diploma course which was the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed on this ground. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, however, stated that with the dismissal of the appeal, the respondent no.1 might be deprived of the fruits of her victory both before the learned single judge and the division bench of the Gauhati High Court.
5. It appears that subsequent to the decision of the learned single judge, the respondent no. 1 had been asked to apply for the seat of D.C.H./D.A. at the Gauhati Medical College, in respect of the session 1995-1996. Although the respondent no. 1 had applied, no further steps had been taken by the director of medical education because of the interim order passed by this Court.
6. However we cannot compel the appellant to pursue his appeal nor can we deprive the appellant of the qualification that he has obtained in the interim period but we make it clear that by dismissing this appeal the respondent no. 1 will be entitled to the benefit that she had consequent upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Since the matter has not been disposed of on merits, we make it clear that the question of law raised in this appeal is left open.
1. The appellant, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 had all sat for the entrance examination for admission to the post-graduate medical course for the session 1995-1996. The results were declared in August, 1996. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 earned higher marks and was placed in a higher position than the appellant in the list of successful candidates. The first counselling was held in June, 1997 when, however, neither the appellant nor respondent no. 1 were offered any placement. At the second counselling which was held in May 1998, the appellant was offered a seat in forensic science and respondent no. 1 in bio-chemistry. There is some dispute as to whether the appellant and respondent no. 1 accepted admission in the course offered to them. What is not 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 was offered micro-biology which she accepted in January 1999. Subsequent to such acceptance, the appellant surrendered his MD seat on 15.2.1999 and prayed for accommodation in the courses of his choice, namely, diploma in child health. It may be mentioned that respondent no. 1 had also indicated her option for a diploma in child health. Nevertheless the respondent no. 1 was admitted in micro-biology course in January, 1999 as there was no vacancy then offered to either the appellant or respondent no. 1 in the course of their choice.
2. In June, 1999 there was a vacancy in the department of paediatrics (D.C.H.) which could have been offered to the appellant or respondent no. 1 to complete the course of their choice. However, no notice was given to the respondent no. 1 who continued in the course of micro-biology. The offer was made only to the appellant. The appellant accepted the offer and joined the course in June, 1999.
3. Coming to know of the vacancy in the department of paediatrics and the failure of the respondent to intimate the respondent no. 1 of the same, the respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court at Gauhati. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge who directed that fresh counselling should be held in respect of the vacant seat in the department of paediatrics. The decision of the learned single judge which was delivered on 2.2.2000 was upheld in appeal by the division bench on 7.3.2000. The appellant approached this Court. 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. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court also there was no interim order as a result of which the appellant continued to pursue the course for obtaining the diploma in child health (D.C.H.). He successfully completed the course in June, 2001. He has been granted the post-graduate diploma from department of paediatrics (D.C.H.) and this qualification has been registered in the office of Assam Council of Medical Registration on 17 July, 2001.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today it was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appeal has become infructuous as the appellant has been able to complete the diploma course which was the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed on this ground. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, however, stated that with the dismissal of the appeal, the respondent no.1 might be deprived of the fruits of her victory both before the learned single judge and the division bench of the Gauhati High Court.
5. It appears that subsequent to the decision of the learned single judge, the respondent no. 1 had been asked to apply for the seat of D.C.H./D.A. at the Gauhati Medical College, in respect of the session 1995-1996. Although the respondent no. 1 had applied, no further steps had been taken by the director of medical education because of the interim order passed by this Court.
6. However we cannot compel the appellant to pursue his appeal nor can we deprive the appellant of the qualification that he has obtained in the interim period but we make it clear that by dismissing this appeal the respondent no. 1 will be entitled to the benefit that she had consequent upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Since the matter has not been disposed of on merits, we make it clear that the question of law raised in this appeal is left open.
