Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6505 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ishrat Jahan And 18 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Mohit Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the University, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct the counseling of the petitioners for combined Pre Ayush Test (CPAT), 2017 and allot the respondent no.7, College to the petitioners for admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) Course, (2017) with further prayer to direct the respondents to allow them to take admission and pursue their study of B.A.M.S. Course (2017) in respondent no.7, College.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners appeared in the entrance examination held on 4.10.2017 and they have passed the examination. They fulfilled all requisite requirement for admission in B.A.M.S. Course 2017 by which the Combined Pre Ayush Test (CPAT) 2017 was conducted by the Lucknow University. The cut of percentile for admission fixed by the government i.e. 50% for general category and 50% for SC/ST and OBC. Since number of seats remain vacant and as such subsequently cut of percentile was reduced, by the State Government vide order dated 6.11.2017 and cut of date was also extended. Subsequently date was extended for 29.11.2017. The petitioner could not get the information with regard to the lowering down of the percentile by the State Government and when they came to know then they approached to get the cut of date 22.11.2017 extended. Thereafter, they went there and request was made for counseling but their drafts and applications were not accepted for admission hence mandamus be issued.
Considered the submissions. The last cut of date was 29.11.2017 for counseling after extension of cut of date. There is no material to show that the petitioner appeared on 22.11.2017 or before the 29.11.2017 now in the month of February, 2018 it is not a fit case to consider to issue direction for admission. If the petitioners are permitted to appear in the counseling for admission after the percentile was lowered down by the Government for the academic session, it will also affect the studies and eduction of the other students, who has already taken admission in the B.A.M.S. Course.
We are of the considered view that the time schedule is required to be strictly adhered to with regard to admissions as has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases, namely, Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (2) SCC 65, Medical Council of India Vs. Manas Ranjan Bahera and others, 2010 (1) SCC 173.
In Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433, the Supreme Court re-emphasized the strict adherence to the statutory time schedule for admission in various courses. The Supreme Court held:
"40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations."
The Supreme Court further held:-
"78.4. With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit"
Again in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2013 (2) SCC 617, the Supreme Court held:-
"81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.
82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. V. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 26086 of 2012), decided on the same date, this Court held as under :
"26. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. V. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. (2012) 8 SCALE 71 at this stage, in addition to the judgment of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India V. Madhu Singh, [(2002) 7 SCC 258]."
83. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.
84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the Schedule stated by this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) in relation to admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulations 2009 and the judgment of this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra):"
In view of the above-noted discussion, the present petition is devoid of merit.
Accordingly, present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Pramod