(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29.11.2016 made in W.P.No.36376 of 2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
3. The first respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 to permit him to join the course of D.M. Cardiology in the third respondent College in the academic year 2016-2017. Admittedly, the first respondent was the fourth candidate in the waitlist in D.M.Caridology Course. Since the candidates 1 to 3 in the waitlist had already joined the Course, the next candidate to get admission was the first respondent. On 31.8.2016, one candidate who had already been selected, orally informed the third respondent that he was not willing to pursue the course and therefore, one seat fell vacant and it was not filled up.
4. The first respondent, contending that had he been communicated about the unwillingness of the candidate who had already been selected in pursuing the course, he would have joined the course immediately and since the third respondent failed to do so, the first respondent sought a direction to grant admission to him in the third respondent Institution.
5. The learned single Judge taking note of the submissions made on behalf of both sides and also taking note of the ratio laid down by various High Courts that valuable seats of D.M.Cardiology should not go waste, directed the appellant to consider the first respondent for admission in the D.M.Caridology Course, in the third respondent institution, within a period of two weeks.
6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the last date for admission to the super specialty medicine courses was 31st August 2016 and therefore, no admission could be made thereafter and that if there was any vacant seat, it would be deemed to have lapsed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the third respondent was not aware of the unwillingness of the candidate who had already been selected, as alleged by the first respondent, on 31.8.2016 and even assuming the same was informed to the third respondent on 31.8.2016 itself, since no payment could be made after 4 pm, the first respondent could not have been granted admission thereafter.
7. Indisputably, the first respondent was the fourth candidate in the waiting list. Though the third respondent was not aware of the unwillingness expressed by the selected candidate in pursuing the course on 31.8.2016, on coming to know about the same thereafter, the third respondent ought to have intimated the same to the first respondent immediately, in view of the fact that one seat of D.M.Cardiology Course would go waste for three years, unless it is filled.
8. A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge would make it clear that the learned single Judge, only after taking note of the decisions of the Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court and considering the fact that one seat fell vacant on 31.8.2016 itself, which was the cut off date for admission and also the ratio that a valuable seat should not go waste, directed the appellant to consider the case of the first respondent for admission.
9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order of the learned single Judge has to be upheld. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to grant admission to the first respondent in the third respondent Institution within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.2988 and 3676 of 2017 are closed.
(H.G.R., A.C.J.) (M.S.J.) 07.3.2017 kpl To The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University No.69, Anna Salai Guindy,Chennai 600 032.