A liberal and equitable dispositions are to be preferred, says HC
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has disposed of a petition filed by a medical aspirant after the court was informed that she was allotted a medical seat in the Government Erode Medical College and Hospital. She was allowed to participate in the second phase of the medical counselling after she missed the first phase due to lack of communication.
The court was hearing the petition filed by S. Gowsalya of Sivaganga district. She moved the court seeking a direction to the State to allot her a medical seat. Despite her eligibility for the selection she could not attend the first phase of the counselling. Hailing from a remote area, she could not get the communication on time due to network connectivity issues.
Taking into account her plight, the High Court had asked the State to permit her to attend the second phase of the medical counselling and pursuant to the direction by the High Court, the petitioner was allowed to attend the counselling. She secured the medical seat under the 7.5 % horizontal reservation for the government school students.
Justice V. Parthiban observed that once the petitioner had earned the seat on the basis of her performance and ranking, she must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the outcome in the selection. When the government had brought in a government order, the lofty policy of the government must be allowed to reach all the beneficiaries of the policy.
Such benefit ought not to be denied to a deserving student like the petitioner who hails from a remote rural area merely for the reason that she could not attend the first phase of the counselling. Whatever be the reasons for her absence at the first phase of the counselling, the same cannot be held against her, denying her the most valuable and a lifetime opportunity of pursuing her dream of becoming a doctor. In the realm of a beneficial public policy of this nature, a liberal and equitable dispositions are to be preferred than adopting a pedantic and inflexible approach, in the larger interest of the recipients of the policy benefits, in order to subserve the ends of justice, the judge said.