Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat &

High Court Of Gujarat|26 September, 2013
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this writ-application, the writ-applicant, Parul Arogya Seva Mandal, which is a Public Trust constituted and registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [ the Act for short], has challenged the communication dated 21st September, 2013, issued by the Chairman, Admission Committee for Professional Meidcal Educational Courses, by which the said authority has informed the petitioner that as it has not become the member of the Consortium within the meaning of Rule 2[c] of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses [Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees][Amendment] Rules, 2013, it is not possible to allot 25% management/NRI quota seats to the petitioner s college and that the same should be treated to be government seats of the State of Gujarat.
There is no dispute that the petitioner s college has been recognized on 16th September, 2013 and by that time, the Consortium had already completed the process of admission in the management quota in the State.
By this application, the grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Act under which the Rules have been framed, unless the seats of the management quota are surrendered, there is no provision for transfer of the seats of management quota in favour of the government by treating those as government seats.
We issued notice upon the Akhil Gujarat Self-Financed Nursing Colleges Management Association, the respondent no.3 and pursuant to such notice, Mr.Mitul Shelat, the learned advocate, has today entered his appearance and submitted before us that the petitioner's college has already become the member of the above Association. It appears that the date for completion of admission process is 30th September, 2013. Mr. Shelat submits that process of admission initiated by his client has already completed and there are vacant seats still available and those have been surrendered in favour of the State pursuant to the Rule in question. Mr. Shelat submits that if an advertisement is given by the petitioner on behalf of his client for the balance seats available in respect of the petitioner s college, his client will be able to complete the process of admission by 30th September, 2013 and in that case, so far the present 10 seats are concerned, there is no necessity of surrendering those at this stage in favour of the government without complying with the formality of the admission at the instance of the Consortium.
Such being the position, we dispose of this application by asking the petitioner to take steps for publication of an advertisement on behalf of the Consortium by bearing the costs of the publication by tomorrow. The Consortium, the added respondent no.3, will take steps for filling up the additional 10 vacant seats meant for the petitioner s college by 30th September, 2013. If the petitioner s college can fill up the above 10 seats by 30th September, 2013, there is no necessity of surrendering the same but in the event, pursuant to such admission process, the above seats are not filled up, those seats will be surrendered to the government as government seats. It is needless to mention that in filling up the new 10 seats, the Consortium will act in accordance with law and in the process, admission already granted should not be disturbed and the scrutiny will be restricted only to the 10 seats.
Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned AGP does not raise any objection in the above procedure being adopted.
In view of the above order, Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pressed the prayer challenging the vires of the Rule as contained in the prayer 20[A] of the application.
With the above observation, this application is disposed of. We make it clear that we have not gone into the question of examining the vires of the Rule as prayed for in paragraph 20[A] of the application. Direct service permitted.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) pirzada Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.