Minor Durga v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.08.2019 Coram:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN Writ Petition No.24186 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.23968 of 2019 Minor Durga Rep.by her father and natural guardian Ramesh.S.
.. Petitioner /versus/ 1.Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Puducherry-01.
2.The Convenor-CENTAC-2019-20, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Pondicherry.
3.Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute. Represented by its Chairman, Vazhudavur, Kathirkamam, Puducherry.
4.S.Gokula Krishnan 5.Ashidha Pradeep 6.Sruthi S.Kurup 7.Vuppula V Sourabh 8.Liana Shahir 9.U.Kiruthika 10.Muthukumaran 11.K.Janaranjani
12.P.Mukeshkanna 13.S.Dhaneshvar 14.V.Sowmiya 15.R.Abiramie 16.P.Dinesh 17.M.Sivashankari 18.S.Thrisha 19.V.Atchaya 20.P.Abiramy 21.M.Nareshkumar 22.S.Indhoumathy 23.K.Mahaashri 24.A.Pavithra 25.S.B.Uthira 26.K.Mahaashri 27.C.Deepiga 28.Fathima Ashika 29.Senthl Valar Nilavu PVS 30.P.Athira 31.Vaishali 32.B.Dharshini 33.K.Surya 34.S.Sivaa Sandossh 35.M.Ashitha 36.K.Sahana 37.K.Subathra
38.Rakesh Divakar 39.M.Premanth 40.Vidhyaa 41.B.Keerthana 42.B.Baraina 43.G.Sanjeetha 44.Nidhi Vijayan 45.R.Dharanidasan 46.U.Toni Divakar 47.Aiswarya M Nair 48.Keerthana 49.Aparna Charoth 50.P.Hemnath 51.Jeffrey Leo Christian 52.R.Arungokul 53.S.Elakkiya 54.D.Ilayakumaran 55.K.Parthasarathi 56.I.Jeevan Bala 57.Deepan 58.Sayed Aashiq 59.R.Yogeshwaran 60.M.Ovya 61.Aravind 62.R.Sowmiya
63.Lavanya Plagala 64.R.Srimathi 65.S.Santhiya 66.N.Srimathy 67.M.Ilaparithy 68.M.Dhanu Vershan 69.S.Revanth Kumar 70.I.Bhuvanesh 71.Yogalakshmi 72.Chinta Ragha Deepthi 73.P.Aravind 74.Niyathi 75.Sharon Valsaraj 76.Bora Sriya Reddy 77.Harshni 78.D.Dharini 79.V.Deepthi 80.V.Amina Zara 81.G.Sathishkumar 82.S.Naveen Chakravarthy 83.P.Kanagalatchoumy 84.S.Thamizhmaran 85.K.Nalini 86.Kavya 87.B.Praveen Raj 88.S.Gowrishankar
89.P.krishanth 90.Kanuri Krishna 91.Aparan 92.S.Hemaprakash 93.R.Dhineshram 94.M.Shalini 95.D.Dheepika 96.S.Swathika 97.J.Rabiyadul Basariya 98.R.Santhosh 99.A.Venkateswaran 100.D.Haritha 101.S.Kaviya 102.R.Keerthana 103.K.S.Krithigaa Devi 104.J.Jayapratha 105.Mellam Bharath 106.P.Harish 107.P.P.Priya 108.P.Preethi 109.Kalla Pravaeen Kumar 110.R.Monisharam 111.L.Balamuralikrishna 112.Meesala Pavitra Chandravathi 113.S.Snegapriya
114.V.L.Alan Riat 115.M.Parthielamvazuthi 116.R.Nirmal 117.M.Logeshwari 118.D.Lokesh 119.N.Krshna 120.I.Harini 121.Chintalapudi N V S S Lokesh 122.S.Kishore 123.S.Vijayasarathy 124.R.Keerthana 125.Pentapati Manohara Jayasri 126.S.Vinothini 127.Bavisetty Satya Venkata Bhavya Sri 128.R.Sivachidambaram 129.B.Malathi 130.E.Janeshwar 131.K.Karan 132.T.Shakthivigneshwaran 133.K.Chezhiyan 134.Dhatchamurthy 135.B.Saran 136.T.Anbu Nila 137.J.Thilaghavathee 138.Bommidi Manohar Varama 139.Mohamed Ashif
140.K.Sakthimaindan .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring impugned second Round revised provisional allotment for NEET based UG Medical Courses 2019-2020 published by the 2nd respondent dated 12.08.2019 in respect of the 3rd respondent college in as much as the selection of respondents 4 to 140 herein as illegal and consequently to re-do the admission process by following the principles of reservation in accordance with law and to admit the petitioner upon she being eligible as per merit to the undergraduate course in MBBS 2019-20 in the 3rd respondent college.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Saikrishnan For Respondents :Mr.GandhiRaj, GP Pondy for R1 to R3 ----------
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Pondy) appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
2.The petitioner, who has secured 378 marks in the NEET examination belongs to OBC category. Her name found place in the provisional list released by the CENTAC at Serial No.90. Whereas, when the final list was published, her name not found. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that one Rakesh Divakar, who was placed under general category in the provisional list has been considered as Mahe OBC candidate in the final list. Three other candidates namely, Kanuri Krishna, Aparna and Hema prakash were not shown in the provisional list but inserted in the final list. 4.After perusing the provisional list and final list released by the CENTAC, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Pondy) to furnish the records and explain why the petitioner's candidature was not considered while finalising the selection list.
5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the CENTAC would submit while drawing the provisional list, the candidature of Rakesh Divakar, who has secured 430 marks was considered under general category and he was placed at 35th rank. Later, on publication of the provisional list, objections and suggestions were received from the public and on verification, they found that Rakesh Divakar has applied under regional quota of Mahe and therefore, he cannot be accommodated in Pondicherry
category. Therefore, the error crept in the provisional list has been rectified and final list was released on 12.08.2019 wherein Rakesh Divakar was considered as Mahe OBC candidate.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Pondicherry Government would submit that for every region, specific number of seats have been allotted and candidates, who want to apply under regional quota should specify the same and apply. Accordingly, Rakesh Divakar has sought seat under regional quota for Mahe. To Mahe region, out of six seats, two seats are for general, one seat each for EWS, OBC, MBC and BCM. Under general category Mahe quota, Ashidha Pradeep with NEET score of 517 marks and Athira.P with NEET score of 444 marks were selected and accommodated. Rakesh Divakar secured 430 marks and was accommodated under Mahe OBC quota.
As far as the petitioner is concerned, she was not opted for any regional reservation and secured 378 marks and she was originally found placed at serial number 90 in the provisional list but later on receiving the objections from the public and candidates, they found that three candidates, who have secured better rank under OBC category than the petitioner were found omitted in the provisional list and therefore, they were included in the final list. The records furnished by the respondents were compared with their submissions and found that their submission is correct.
7. The petitioner, who has secured 378 marks has not been deprived of seats at the cost of less meritorious candidate. As per the application of Rakesh Divakar he has been considered under Mahe regional quota and therefore, though he has secured 430 marks, as per his option, he has been considered as Mahe OBC candidate and provided seat. It is the right of the candidate who is entitled for any special reservation to exercise the said option.
8. Here in this case, Rakesh Divakar has exercised his option for Mahe region quota. No one can compel him not to opt the regional reservation, which he is entitled for. Therefore, there is no merits in the representation of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ari
To 1.The Secretary to Government,Union of India Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Puducherry-01.
2.The Convenor-CENTAC-2019-20, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Pondicherry.
3.Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute. Represented by its Chairman, Vazhudavur, Kathirkamam, Puducherry.
+1cc to Mr.T.Saikrishnan, Advocate SR.71264 +1cc to the Government Pleader SR.71609 Writ Petition No.24186 of 2019 PVS(CO) CB(10/10/2019)