Rafia Tanveer v. State of Uttarakhand

2024:UHC:9777-DB SL. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

2 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 4

SPA No. 378 of 2024 Hon 'ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J. Hon 'ble Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.

¶1Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for appellant.

¶2Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Naveen Tewari, learned Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶3Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶4Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

¶5Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/ respondent nos. 6 to 8.

¶6This is an intra-Court appeal challenging the final order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3318/ 2024. By the said judgment, the Writ Petition filed by appellant, challenging the Notification dated 23.09.2024 issued by Uttarakhand Centralized Counselling Board, and also the decision taken in some meeting held on

20.09.2024, was dismissed.

¶7It is not in dispute that appellant has passed MBBS Course, and she was desirous of taking admission in Post-Graduate Medical Course. She appeared in NEET PG Examination, however, she could not get herself registered within the date indicated in the Notification dated 23.09.2024.

¶8Before the learned Writ Court, appellant

2024:UHC:9777-DB contended that the candidates, desirous of admission in PG Medical Course, should be permitted to get themselves registered at every round of counseling. Appellant had placed reliance upon the Bulletin issued by Medical Counselling Committee constituted by Central Government, in support of the said contention. The contention raised by appellant did not found favour with the learned Writ Court, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.

¶9We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Reliance placed by appellant on the Bulletin issued by Medical Counselling Committee constituted by Central Government is misplaced, as the said Bulletin is applicable only in respect of All India Quota PG seats. Since appellant was seeking admission against State Quota PG seats, therefore, the decision taken by the Uttarakhand Centralized Counselling Board would be applicable. Appellant herself is to be blamed for not getting herself registered in terms of the Notification dated 23.09.2024. Thus, her challenge to the said notification was rightly repelled by learned Writ Court.

¶10There is no merit in the present Special Appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶11Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

( Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 2 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 4 Rahul

RAHUL PRAJAP ATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3 e66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8 A192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE 4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2024.12.23 11:28:46 +05'30'