Dr. Y. Narasimhulu vs N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others

Goda Raghuram, J

The appellant is the writ petitioner in WP No.30941 of 1998, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 8-6-1999. The appellant is a Tutor in Physiology in Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool. The 1st respondent-University by its notification dated 29-6-1998 invited applications from eligible candidates to appear for the entrance test for admission into Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for the academic year 1998-99, in the colleges affiliated to it. The appellant applied and appeared for the entrance test held on 13-8-1998. The results of the entrance test were published in the news papers of 4-10-1998, and as evident therefrom, the appellant obtained, rank No.284. On 15-10-1998 1st respondent''s notification intimated the results of the selection on various notice boards including that of Kurnool Medical College. As per the schedule notified, counselling for allotment of seats in all institutions was on 21-10-1998 and 22-10-1998, during specified timings.

The appellant sought admission to Post Graduate disciplines as an inservice candidate. The Rules governing admissions for the appellant''s category ordain (to the extent relevant for the case on hand) that-

"Candidates claiming admission under inservice under sub-rule (2) shall submit eligibility service certificate issued only by the concerned Director of Medical Education, Director of Health, the Director, Insurance Medical Services, the Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Vidya Vidhana Parishad, or the Registrar, University of Health Sciences in the prescribed form appended to application at the time of counselling or selection as the case may be. Applications of the candidates who have not submitted the certificate from the respective Head of the Department at the time of counselling or selection shall not be considered for inservice quota;"

According to the appellant he was called for counselling on 22-8-1998 and allegedly offered a seat in Kurnool Medical College in the inservice quota in M.D. (Dermatology). According to the appellant he could not produce the necessary certificate from the specified authority and in lieu thereof he produced a certificate issued by the Principal of Kurnool Medical College, where the appellant is working. The appellant also alleged that he undertook to submit the required certificate in accordance with the Rules and that despite substantial compliance with the requirements of the rule in the matter of submitting a certificate, he was not selected on the ground that he did not produce the necessary certificate as required by the rules. The appellant stated various facts including constraints of time and procedural delays for not being able to produce the certificate issued by the specified authority.

Before the learned single Judge and in the appeal the substantive contention of the appellant is that his inability to produce the certificate issued by the specified authority was not on account of any negligence or lack of effort on his part, but on account of the circumstances beyond his control and that since he has substantially complied with the requirement by producing the service certificate issued by the Principal, Kurnool Medical College, the action of the respondents in denying him a seat relying on the technicalities of the Rule constitutes an arbitrary and irrational exercise of power. Before the learned single Judge and before us in the appeal, the appellants relied upon the decisions of High Courts of Madras and Punjab & Haryana in V. Shanthanalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1995 (3) SLR 657; Deepak Wadhwa v. The Punjabi University Patiala, 1996 (1) SLR 550; and Arjan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) SLR 552.

A detailed analysis of these judgments cited with a view to determine their relevance and applicability to the case of the appellant-petitioner, has been done by the learned single Judge. All these decisions enunciate a principle that substantial compliance with the procedural requirement would constitute adequate compliance and a citizen''s entitlement should not be declined on the ground that absolute compliance with the technicality has not been achieved or adhered to.

Learned single Judge, however, found that the failure of the appellant to produce a service certificate issued by the competent authority in the context of the ability of all other inservice candidates to produce such certificate clearly demonstrates an absence of care on his part. Learned single Judge also found that the requirement by the statutory rule that a certificate by a specified authority is alone relevant, is for the purpose of ensuring that bogus or incorrect claims are avoided.

Admissions to higher professional courses such as Medicine and Engineering, in India, are highly competitive and this is more so in the case of Post Graduate Courses in Medicine. Having applied for a seat in Post graduation in "in service quota", pursuant to a notification dated 29-6-1998 of the 1st respondent, the appellant was too well aware that he had to produce a service certificate issued by the authority specified in the Rules. He had nearly four months time upto 22-10-1998 for producing the certificate. His plea is that he made an application to the Principal of the college where he was working on 15-10-1998, the date of notification of selection by the R1 University, seeking a certificate, which could not be procured by 22-10-1998. We are clearly of the view that the appellant did not exhibit the requisite degree of care and caution in the context of the opportunity for higher education he was seeking. His approach in the matter discloses a casual attitude as held by the learned single Judge, with which we are in agreement. The appellant''s grievance is that the 5th respondent who has been allotted a seat obtained a rank much lower to him. The fact of the matter is that the appellant did not produce the certificate issued by the relevant authority and the 5lh respondent did and in the circumstances she was allotted a seat and the appellant denied, validly. There is an ancient Latin maxim which has been internalised also into our jurisprudence - "Vigilantibus, Et Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt." (The vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). The appellant invoked the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The absence of the requisite degree of vigilance on his part warrants that no discretion be exercised in his favour and against the 5th respondent, who did demonstrate the requisite degree of vigilance and care.

We find no error in the application of law or of discretion by the learned single Judge. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.