The Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr. P.S. Chaitanya & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4344
Petitioner: The Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences
Respondent: Dr. P.S. Chaitanya & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4344
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 08, 2000
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Article 136 – Direction by High Court to obtain permission from Medical Council and increase one seat in M.S. Surgery for next academic year – Order adjusting equities. Held, no grounds for interference.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this appeal and perused the record. The direction given by the learned Single Judge in the ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment reads, thus:
“I, therefore, deem it fit to direct the respondent-University of Health Sciences to obtain the permission of the Indian Medical Council and increase the seat by one in M.S. General Surgery for the next academic year and give the same to the petitioner. This exercise must be done before the commencement of the course for the next academic year so that the petitioner is not deprived of the legitimate rights any longer.
2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court apparently adjusts equities and we do not find nay reason to interfere with that direction. We however, clarify that the expression ‘next academic year’, as mentioned in the direction of the High Court, would apply to the next academic year after the date of our order.
3. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without going into any other issue involved in the case. No costs.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this appeal and perused the record. The direction given by the learned Single Judge in the ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment reads, thus:
“I, therefore, deem it fit to direct the respondent-University of Health Sciences to obtain the permission of the Indian Medical Council and increase the seat by one in M.S. General Surgery for the next academic year and give the same to the petitioner. This exercise must be done before the commencement of the course for the next academic year so that the petitioner is not deprived of the legitimate rights any longer.
2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court apparently adjusts equities and we do not find nay reason to interfere with that direction. We however, clarify that the expression ‘next academic year’, as mentioned in the direction of the High Court, would apply to the next academic year after the date of our order.
3. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without going into any other issue involved in the case. No costs.
