PMET: No further order without hearing all, says High court
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday said it would not pass any order for audit of the Punjab Pre-Medical Entrance Test (PMET), 2015, question paper without hearing all parties.chandigarh Updated: Sep 19, 2015 14:45 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday said it would not pass any order for audit of the Punjab Pre-Medical Entrance Test (PMET), 2015, question paper without hearing all parties.
The high court bench of justice SS Saron and justice Shekher Dhawan's verbal observation came during the resumed hearing of an appeal, wherein the single judge order of upholding the PMET-2015 conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot, was challenged.
The petitioner's lawyer had urged the court to get the question paper audited by a third party by the time the other arguments were heard. As the BFUHS counsel opposed it, the high court verbally said it would not pass any order without hearing the other parties.
On Thursday, various respondents raised questions over the petitioners not impleading those student parties in the case who were higher in merit and had become party before the single judge bench. The respondent counsels criticised the registry of the high court for listing the case without taking into account that necessary parties had not been made in the case and also raised questions over the "act" of petitioners. Later, the high court bench allowed those students to be parties in the case.
The BFUHS told the high court that 548 students had taken admission by September 9 and 152 on September 10, the day the order was passed in the high court; later, the admissions did not take place following the order.
There are a total of 920 MBBS and 1,070 BDS seats across Punjab. The interim order of no admission till further orders would continue till the next date of hearing on September 21.
On September 10, the high court division bench had asked the university not to admit students following an appeal against the verdict of the single-judge bench. The petitioners had alleged that as many as 40 questions in the paper had errors.
They had challenged the September 1 order of the single-judge bench whereby a retest was ruled out and the university was directed to revise the merit list after giving 12 marks to all 15,000 students and additional four marks in two other categories of candidates.