The petitioner is one of the applicant for professional courses in MBBS and BDS degrees through common entrance examination held for the year 2014-15. Based on her option, she was alloted a seat in the additional 3rd respondent-college for BDS programme. The additional 3rd respondent college is a self financing institute. Petitioner's present prayer is that students lower to her rank have been admitted to Government College in BDS course and there are vacancies in Government colleges in BDS course and, therefore, she may be granted allotment to a Government college.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner did not submit any option for BDS course in any of the Government Dental Colleges. Along with the counter statement, a list of option exercised by the petitioner is produced as Ext.R2(a). This would indicate that the petitioner has exercised option for the MBBS programme in Government Medical Colleges and BDS programme in some of the self financing colleges. It is stated that as per the clauses in the prospectus a candidate's allotment will depend upon the rank in the merit list and exercise opted. Therefore, they cannot allot any seat to the petitioner unless otherwise than the procedures mentioned in the prospectus.
3. This Court as per the interim order 18/09/2014 directed to keep one seat vacant in Government College.
4. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that seats are vacant for BDS programme in Government Medical Colleges and no allotment can be made after 30/09/2014. It is further stated that without payment of liquidated damages to the 3rd respondent-college, seat cannot be allotted to the petitioner. The terms of prospectus indicate that after obtaining admission based on option in self financing colleges, admission can only be granted based on payment of liquidated damages. This is also clear from Ext.P7.
5. Petitioner submits that she cannot afford to pay liquidated damages. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent college has no objection in giving allotment without payment of liquidated damages.
6. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent, they have not chosen to appear. Therefore, assuming that the 3rd respondent has no objection, this Court cannot direct the Commissioner to allot seat after 30/09/2014. There is no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 refusing allotment to the petitioner. Therefore, it may not be proper for this Court to make an allotment after 30/09/2014 as this would amount to violation of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms