Madras High Court today asked the government pleader why it should not direct the government not to issue admission cards for candidates for MBBS seats even though counselling process can go on.
The court raised the query while adjourning an appeal filed by an aspirant, Kabilan, represented by his father, challenging a single judge's interim order allowing the government to consider even previous year candidates for counselling.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan had said consideration of students who passed Plus Two in earlier academic years for admission to MBBS and BDS course this year would be subject to outcome of petitions by those students challenging related government order who passed the qualifying examination in 2015.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Satish K Agnihotri and M Venugopal was hearing the appeal filed by Kabilan, who passed the current Plus Two exam and applied for MBBS course.
Raising objection to the query, special government pleader D Krishna Kumar submitted that he will get instructions from the government following which the bench posted the matter for hearing tomorrow.
Justice Sathyanarayanan had passed the interim order on June 12 rpt June 12 during the hearing of a batch of over 60 petitions by students, represented by their parents, seeking to restrain the Directorate of Medical Examination and Selection Committee for medical education from considering the claim of earlier batch of Plus Two students for MBBS admission in the current academic year.
Counsel Raghavachari, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the order of the single judge was "contrary to law, manifestly erroneous, unjust and unconstitutional".
Stating that the single judge had failed to appreciate that the marks obtained by persons similarly situated alone could lead to healthy competition, the appellant said, "It is an admitted fact that the examination held in the year 2014- 2015 was strict, tough and highly competitive.
"Allowing persons of the previous years to compete with the students who have taken up examination this year will result in treating unequals as equals."
The appellant alleged that the single judge ought to have finally adjudicated the issue as it involves the lives of several thousand students.
"Failure to finally adjudicate the case on hand has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice," the appellant said and prayed that the interim order be set aside.
