2006 INSC 0095
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                             Aman Deep Jaswal

                                                      Vs.

                                          State of Punjab & Ors.

  (Y.K. Sabharwal and C.K. Thakker, JJ. R.V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.)

                                            C.A.No.988 of 2006

                                                 03.02.2006

                                                   ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the writ a petitioner Aman Deep
Jaswal was meritorious and was entitled to be admitted in Government Medical College,
Patiala against the course of her option, namely, MD Anaesthesia. She could not, however,
be granted relief in view of the session having already commenced. The relief was denied on
the ground that if allowed, it would amount to mid-session admission which was not
permissible. At the same time, the High Court cancelled the admission in b the aforesaid
course granted to respondent Dr. Radhika Dhawan. Further, concluding that the Selection
Committee of the respondent State had committed default in ignoring the rightful claim of the
writ petitioner, the State was burdened with costs of Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) by
further directing that half of the amount would be recoverable from the Chairman/Members
of the Selection Committee for ignoring fhe rightful c claimant and for arbitrarily exercising
the power vested in them and the remaining amount from the State. Both the writ petitioner
and the respondent Dr. Radhika Dhawan whose admission was cancelled, have challenged
the impugned judgment of the High Court.

3. It is not in dispute that the appellant Aman Deep Jaswal was much higher in rank in the
selection and had also opted for MD Anaesthesia as one d of the options. There could be no
valid reason for denying her admission simply because of the word "any" written by her as
third preference. Her first preference was MD Gynaecology and the next was MD
Anaesthesia but in the second counselling her first option was MD Anaesthesia. The same
could not be denied for the use of the word "any" when it is not disputed that she was more
meritorious than Dr. Radhika Dhawan. The High Court was, e however, right, despite these
facts, in denying admission being granted to her during mid-session.

(2006) 9 SCC 597                                                  SpotLaw
                                                               1
4. On these peculiar facts, we are of the view that the appellant Aman Deep Jaswal is entitled
to be admitted in MD Anaesthesia in Government Medical College, Patiala in the next
academic year 2006-2007 within the sanctioned intake of the college. Ordered accordingly.

5. The next question is about the direction in the impugned judgment cancelling the
admission of Dr. Radhika Dhawan. It is not the case of any of the parties that insofar as Dr.
Radhika Dhawan is concerned, she is also from the select list and has put in almost a year in
the course. At this stage, relief could not be granted to the appellant Aman Deep Jaswal by
cancelling the admission of Dr. Radhika Dhawan. Therefore, we set aside the impugned g
judgment to the extent it directs cancellation of admission of Dr. Radhika Dhawan.

6. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside in the above terms. The appellant Aman
Deep Jaswal will be granted admission as above directed.

7. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly
.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.

(2006) 9 SCC 597                                                  SpotLaw
                                                               2