Ashish Goel, Advocate vs State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present petition, purportedly filed in public interest, is by an Advocate practicing at Panchkula in the State of Haryana challenging the admission of respondent No. 6 to MBBS course in a Medical College situated in the State of Punjab.

As per facts on record, respondent No. 6 was admitted against a seat meant for Non Resident Indian in the year 2003. The writ petition challenging the admission of the said respondent has been filed on 15.11.2007. It is alleged that said respondent No. 6 is ineligible for admission to a course leading to MBBS degree as the said respondent has qualified 10+1 from Yadavindra Public School, Patiala, with commerce subjects in the year 2001-2002. He has been admitted to the course on the basis of the certificate obtained from Springfield North High School, Springfield, Ohio, USA. The petitioner has alleged that the said certificate is a fabricated document. It was also alleged that respondent No. 6 did not appear in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET) and that he was admitted against N.R.I. seat in Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, but within two months, he was shifted to Government Medical College, Patiala, where mother of the said respondent was the Principal. The petitioner alleges that admission of respondent No. 6 to MBBS course is against the eligibility conditions prescribed by the University itself. Still further, migration within two months of the admission is contrary to the Regulations of the Medical Council of India.

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, respondent No. 3, has filed its detailed written statement. It has been stated that admission of respondent No. 6 was made absolutely bona fide and strictly on the basis of merit and in full conformity with the prescribed norms of eligibility and the established rules, regulations, procedure and without any relaxation, concession or deviation. It is also pointed out that father of respondent No. 6 has nothing to do with the University at the relevant time as he took over as Vice Chancellor on 26.10.2005 i.e. two years subsequent to the admission of respondent No. 6 in September, 2003. It is pleaded that respondent No. 6 was admitted to MBBS course on the basis of merit and in full conformity with the prescribed norms of eligibility as per State Government notification dated 14.5.2003 and the Prospectus issued by the University. The qualifying examination for the purpose of admission is the examination equivalent to 10+2. 10+1 examination is not a qualifying examination for the candidates in NRI category. It is also pleaded that respondent No. 6 has produced certificate of study of three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in Class 12 of Session 2002-2003 from a foreign institute, namely, Springfield North High School, Springfield, Ohio, USA. The eligibility certificate dated 16.06.2003 was issued by the University certifying that the Diploma Certificate produced by him is deemed to be equivalent to 10+2 (senior secondary) examination of the Punjab State Education Board/Central Board of Secondary Education/I.C.S.E. The eligibility certificate Annexure R3/2 was issued to respondent No. 6 on an application made by him to the University for the purpose. A complete photocopy of application form along with documents attached therewith has been attached with the written statement. It is averred that at no stage information in respect of 10+1 examination is sought from a candidate seeking admission to a seat for NRI and for the purpose of determining the eligibility conditions. It is submitted that Springfield North High School is accredited with North Central Association of Schools, State of Ohio, USA, thus, the qualification obtained by respondent No. 6 was rightly considered equivalent to 10+2 qualification of the Indian School Boards/Institutes.

In a joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6, it is inter alia, pleaded that a NRI candidate is not required to take entrance test and the eligibility is to be determined by equivalence to 10+2 examination by the University. The NRI candidate is required to pass the qualifying examination with 50 % marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and there is no stipulation of 10+1 examination. Equivalence is only required with 10+2. It is pleaded that respondent No. 4 retired from government service on 30.06.2003 i.e., three months prior to admission of respondent No. 6 and was appointed as Vice Chancellor on 26.10.2005. It is also pointed out that after admission, said respondent No. 6 has passed 1st, 2nd and 3rd Professional Examination and is currently doing internship. It is also pleaded that respondent No. 5 was not part of the Selection Committee which admitted respondent No. 6 and that he was admitted to a private college and not to a Government College. It is also pleaded that the present writ petition is a motivated writ petition filed at the behest of a vested interest of some private health care institute, individual organization seeking weakening and harm to the University.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has raised a preliminary objection with vehemence that the present writ petition has been filed after four years of the admission to the course and by a person, who is totally unconnected with the cause. It is contended that the writ petition is at the instance of detractors of respondents No. 4 and 5 and, therefore, no interference is called for at this stage in a writ petition filed in public interest.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the present petition has been filed by an Advocate having derived information in respect of illegal admission of respondent No. 6 on the basis of pamphlets found by him on a bus stand. Therefore, the petitioner, an officer of the Court and well versed in the rights and responsibilities of a citizen has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

The legality of admission of respondent No. 6 at this stage in a writ petition filed in public interest after more than four years of admission of respondent No. 6 need not be examined. We find that the writ petition is not a bona-fide exercise in public interest. It is not disclosed when the pamphlets were distributed and on which bus stand were they found. It is also noteworthy that the present writ petition has been filed when the student has already completed the professional examinations. The writ petition filed after completion of the academic course by respondent No. 6 suffers from gross delay and laches. The petitioner as an Advocate has taken up an issue which is not related to the justice delivery system or a cause relating to the downtrodden or other weaker and deprived sections of society. The writ petition is directed towards a specific person. The petitioner appears to be only a name lender. He is a busy body unconnected with the subject matter of writ petition. Thus, we find that the present writ petition lacks bona fide.

In view of the above, we dismiss the present writ petition with no order as to costs.