THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29976 of 2014 Dated: 21.10.2014 Between:
K. Meghana Reddy .. Petitioner and Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel For Mr. J. Ugra Narasimha Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents 4& 5: AGP for Medical, Health& Family Welfare The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in denying the petitioner a seat in I year M.B.B.S. course in respondent No.1 university, as illegal and arbitrary.
The facts lie in a narrow sphere.
The petitioner has appeared for EAMCET-2014 and secured a rank of 2904 in medical stream. She has averred that in view of the uncertainty prevailed following the division of the State of A.P., the petitioner claimed to have joined P.M. Patil Medical College in Bijapur, Karnataka State, in I year M.B.B.S. course on 21.06.2014. The petitioner has further pleaded that she has submitted her original certificates i.e. Class X and Intermediate marks memos, transfer certificates etc. in the said medical college at the time of admission. That following the direction issued by the Supreme Court for holding third round of counseling, respondent No.3 has held third round of counseling on 30.09.2014, after issuing a notification in the website on the late evening of 29.09.2014. That she attended the counseling on 30.09.2014 and that for her rank, she should have been allotted a seat in Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Sooraram, Ranga Reddy District, i.e. respondent No.6 herein, but she was not allotted the same, only on the ground that she did not produce her original certificates. The petitioner also pleaded that the officials concerned with the counseling have stated that as the petitioner got herself admitted in medical college in Karnataka State and submitted her original certificates in the said college, she cannot be allotted a seat. Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in not allotting the seat to her, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, the Registrar of respondent No.1 University has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has admitted the fact that the petitioner has attended the counseling held on 30.09.2014. He has further admitted that the petitioner and her parents represented that they do not have the original certificates, as they have given them in a private medical college in Bijapur of Karnataka State, and produced photocopies. That as the petitioner has not produced the original certificates or a custodian certificate, the seat could not be allotted to her based on photocopies.
Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that several students were admitted in I year M.B.B.S. course by respondent No.1 University based on photocopies of certificates and that respondents 1 to 3 have indulged in invidious discrimination by refusing to accept the photocopies sought to be submitted by the petitioner with the undertaking that she will produce the original certificates at the time of admission.
Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, submitted that in all those cases where seats were allotted based on photocopies, the candidates have produced custodian certificates to the effect that the original certificates were in the custody of the colleges in which they were admitted. He has, however, conceded that the University Regulations do not provide for accepting such custodian certificates in lieu of the original certificates.
The only issue that needs to be considered in this case is whether respondents 1 to 3 are justified in denying a seat to the petitioner based on the photocopies in the absence of original certificates.
The Regulations of respondent No.1 University, undoubtedly, provided for production of original certificates by the candidates at the time of counseling. However, respondent No.1 University has not strictly followed this Regulation. On their own showing, they have admitted the students based on photocopies and on production of custodian certificates. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner was asked to produce custodian certificate along with photocopies.
Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel, strenuously submitted that since it is the duty of the petitioner to produce the custodian certificate, the officials conducting counseling did not insist on production of such custodian certificate. In my opinion, this submission of the learned Standing Counsel has no merit for the reason that admittedly, the Regulations do not prescribe production of custodian certificate. Therefore, the petitioner is not expected to offer to produce the custodian certificate unless the officials of the University called upon her to produce such certificate. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a copy of the acknowledgment of original documents, issued by the B.L.D.E. University.
At the hearing, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, has placed before this Court the original acknowledgment issued by the B.L.D.E. University, which shows that the original certificates were in their custody.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that evidently, due to communication gap between the petitioner and her parents on the one side and the officials conducting counseling on the other, the petitioner could not produce the certificate issued by the B.L.D.E. University, which was presumably available with her at the time of counseling. Inasmuch as respondents 1 to 3 have allotted seats to all those students who have produced photocopies along with custodian certificates, I am of the opinion that it would be a grave travesty of justice if the petitioner is denied seat only on the ground that she did not produce the custodian certificate.
At the hearing, it is submitted by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, that a seat is vacant in the I year M.B.B.S. course in respondent No.6 college, in which the petitioner would have been admitted as per her rank, had a seat been allotted to her.
Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel, has fairly admitted existence of such a seat.
This Court is conscious of the fact that 30.09.2014 is the last date prescribed under the Regulations for admissions and the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [2]
[1]
, Neelu Arora v. Union of India , Aman Deep Jaswal v. State of
[3] [4]
Punjab , Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and Mridul
[5]
Dhar v. Union of India , has held that the cut-off date is inviolable..
However, in Asha v. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health
[6]
Sciences , the Supreme Court held as under:
“There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer.
Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission.”
After giving my anxious consideration, I am of the opinion that in view of existence of clear vacancy in the same college in which the petitioner would have been entitled to pursue her education and following the judgment in Asha (6 supra), respondent No.1 is directed to allot a seat in I year M.B.B.S. course to the petitioner in respondent No.6 college, on the petitioner filing photocopies and also the original “acknowledgment of original documents received” issued by B.L.D.E. University dated 21.06.2014. On such allotment by respondent No.1, respondent No.6 is directed to admit the petitioner in I year M.B.B.S. course. It is further directed that within three weeks from the date of her admission, the petitioner must produce all the relevant original certificates before respondent No.1 University, failing which her admission will stand cancelled.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37445 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st October, 2014 IBL
[1] (2002) 7 SCC 258
[2] (2003) 3 SCC 366
[3] (2006) 9 SCC 597 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1893
[4] (2005) 12 SCC 626
[5] (2005) 2 SCC 65
[6] (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 389