INDORE BENCH of Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered issuance of notice to Shri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences (SAIMS) in response to a petition that has sought quashing of admissions done in all private colleges for MBBS and BDS in the State for 2006-07, as they wee a violation of Supreme Court directives and provisions applicable to DMAT 2006.
The order issued by Justice N K Mody on Wednesday has directed issuance of notice to respondent-college returnable within three weeks.
However, one of the petitioners, S P Anand, moved an application on Thursday seeking issuance of notices to State of MP, Association of Private Dental & Medical Colleges (Bhopal), Judges’ Committee (Bhopal) and the Medical College Director, stating that justice was not possible without making them parties in the case.
He also sought issuance of notice to Chief Minister and Head of the Council Ministers in view of remarks made by Assembly Speaker Ishwardas Rohani, a Constitutional authority, that he had clinching evidence that students were being asked to pay Rs 10 lakh each for granting admission in private medical colleges.
In the writ, petitioner’s grandchildren Sanchita and Sahil Anand, through their counsel D M Shah, have drawn attention towards advertisements that appeared in two Hindi dailies on September 27, 2006.
They said that advertisement published by Association of Private Colleges in Raj Express and another published by Aurobindo institute in Naiduniya make it clear that first allotment of admission was done through computerised method.
This implied that no centralised counselling was provided to grant them admission in course of their choice according to the ranks they obtained in DMAT exams. This is contrary to Apex Court’s directions of having centralised counselling (where students are called at a common place with merits displayed), which ensures a transparent and non-exploitative admission procedure.
The petitioners urged that no one has the authority to modify or change the admission process, as the Supreme Court directives were binding on all.
Plaintiffs argued that there was no need for inviting fresh application from 5,000 students to fill up 594 seats (as advertised) and that too by giving them a short notice to pay fee on September 28 (a day after the advertisement) while the applications were required to be submitted on same day of advertisement publication.
“This denied candidates a fair, just and reasonable opportunity to file applications and get admission based on merits,” the petitioners said.