Darshan B.P. and Others vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No. 1 and 2 herein to approve/confirm the provisional admissions of the petitioners herein made on 18.08.2014 for the 2nd year ''B'' Pharma by lateral method and direct them to permit the petitioners to continue the studies of 2nd year ''B'' Pharma and complete the course. In that direction, the petitioners had made a representation dated 29.10.2014 and are seeking consideration of the same.

The petitioners who got admitted themselves to ''D'' Pharma Course at respondent No. 3-college had at the first instance when the results of the said course were declared, had failed. However, they had applied for revaluation wherein they were successful and they secured the marks that would have entitled them for admission to ''B'' Pharma course. In that view, the petitioners have secured the admission to ''B'' Pharma course for the second year on lateral entry as they are exempted from joining the first year on completion of their ''D'' Pharma course. Such admission is secured to respondent No. 3-college wherein they have completed their ''D'' Pharma course.

The issue however in the instant petitions is with regard to the admission that was made immediately subsequent to the last date that had been fixed by respondent No. 1-University in respect of ''B'' Pharma course. There is no dispute to the fact that the details relating to the completed admissions were to be uploaded by respondent No. 3-college on 16.08.2014. The fact that the petitioners were admitted immediately thereafter cannot also be disputed since the results of ''D'' Pharma course for which the petitioners had appeared was declared only on 18.08.2014. It is in that light, the petitioners claim that when the result itself was declared on a date subsequent to the last date that had been fixed, no flaw could be found with the petitioners. As such, the admission that has been permitted is required to be regularized and the provisional admission be directed to be confirmed.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that when the dates relating to the admission and the date on which the petitioners have got their eligibility for the course are kept in view, there can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the admission has been made subsequent to the last date that has been fixed.

In that view, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would contend that any admission made subsequent thereto would have no sanctity, more particularly in a circumstance where the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education in Civil Appeal No. 9048/2012 has held that adherence to the time schedule by the colleges as well as the authorities concerned is mandatory. In the said background, learned counsel for the petitioners would however rely on the decision in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others [, (2012) 7 SCC 389] also by the Hon''ble Supreme Court with specific reference to the indication in para 30 therein. The decision as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners would no doubt indicate that when there is no flaw of the students, the students should not be penalised. In the instant case, neither the flaw could be attributed to the petitioners nor to respondents No. 1 and 2. In any event, the petitioners were required to be eligible to be admitted to ''B'' Pharma course and such eligibility was acquired on a subsequent date but in respect of an examination written earlier.

In the instant case, the fact that the result of ''D'' Pharma course on the revaluation sought by the petitioners was announced on 18.08.2014 and it is in that light, respondent No. 3-college had admitted them to ''B'' Pharma Course for the second year on lateral entry is evident. It is no doubt true that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the time schedule is to be adhered to. Even in the decision relied on by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, on indicating that the adherence of time schedule is mandatory, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also indicated the reason that non-adherence of the schedule can result in serious consequences and jeopardize not only the interest of the students, but also the maintenance of proper standard of education.

If the said observation is kept in view also, I am of the opinion that the peculiar circumstances will have to be dealt in its own way as and when the occasion arises without making it as a General Rule. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, firstly if the admission of the petitioners is ordered to be continued, no other student nor the schedule fixed in any other manner would be effected on disrupted. This is for the reason that in any event, the seats for which the petitioners were admitted for the second year in 2014, there is no other rival claimant. That apart, immediately thereafter the petitioners were before this Court in these petitions and this Court had permitted the petitioners to continue the course and as such, the other criteria relating to the attendance in the classes has also been compiled by the petitioners in the present facts.

That apart, in addition to the first interim order that had been granted, this Court had once again by the order dated 14.05.2015 permitted the petitioners to take up the second year ''B'' Pharma examination and as such, having taken up the exams, the petitioners have already reached the third year of the ''B'' Pharma Course. If at this stage, the petitioners'' admissions as provided to them is disturbed, not only the course that the petitioners have undergone in ''B'' Pharma would be effected, but again the petitioners who were eligible in the lateral entry would have to take their chance to seek for lateral entry once over again by loosing nearly three years and that would not benefit anyone.

If all these peculiar circumstances of the instant case are kept in view, I am of the opinion that the prayer as made in the petitions is liable to be granted, but however without treating the same as a precedent for any other case. In that view, a direction is issued to the respondents to approve the admissions of the petitioners to the second year ''B'' Pharma course from the academic year 2014-15 onwards and permit the petitioners to complete the course as per the schedule.

In view of the said direction, it is needless to mention that the respondents would now announce the results of the petitioners and permit them to appear for the future examinations to be conducted in that regard, subject to satisfying the other conditions.

In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.