Gauri Malik and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Eight petitioners who were admitted to different colleges in Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the State of Haryana in the month of November, 2000, and February, 2001, took the Entrance Test held on 1st July, 2001 by Kurukshetra University for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in different professional colleges in the State of Haryana for the year 2001-2002. In the result declared, petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 were not successful for which reason the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted that the petition is not pressed on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8, and, therefore, the petition is dismissed as not pressed in regard to these seven petitioners (petitioner Nos. 2 to 8).

As far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, she was admitted to B.D.S. course in BRS Dental College, Kot Billa in pursuance to the counseling held on 27th November, 2000. She took admission in the said college, This petitioner has placed on record no objection certificate dated 26th September, 2001 vide which the said college has stated that it has got no objection if the petitioner is granted admission in any other collie. The said no objection certificate reads as under:-

"This is to cenify that Miss Gauri Malik d/o Shri Ashok Malik, resident of 684/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak has got admission in BDS 1st Prof, in the Session 2000-2001 in this Institute. This college has no objection she want to get admission in any other Dental/medical College in Haryana or any other State.

Sd/- Principal,

BRS Dental College & Hospital."

The petitioner took the entrance examination for admission to the Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana for the year 2001 (academic session 2000-2001). She was successful but was denied admission to the MBBS/BDS Course for the current year in view of Clause 18 of the brochure. The petitioner, was therefore, compelled to file the present writ petition.

The basic contention of the petitioner is that Clause 18 of the brochure is unconstitutional and invalid. According to the petitioner it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is otherwise also an unreasonable condition which hampers the professional progress of the candidates and their admission to professional course. However, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner need not detain us any further in view of the judgments delivered by this Bench today in the cases of Ashish Aggarwal v. Ku-rukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Ors. 2001 C.W.P. 11549 and Mabel v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2001. C.W.P 11443

For the reasons stated therein we reject the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the challenge of clause 18 of the information brochure for MBBS/BDS courses for admission in the Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana, for the year 2001.

We may also notice that no objection certificate issued by the College, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P. 1 afore-reproduced is also of no help to the petitioners. The mere fact that the College has no objection is of no consequence in the face of a specific condition i.e. Clause 18 of the brochure. If such no objection certificates are taken note of and candidates are permitted to change their courses as a matter of principle, it would frustrate the very object of the medico-education scheme formulated by the Government. There will be perpetual wastage of seats as every candidate admitted to a course of lessor importance would like to leave the said course and try his luck for admission to a better course, or better institution by taking the subsequent entrance examination. If such candidates are successful in the subsequent entrance test and are granted seats, the obvious result would be wastage of seats of the previous academic year as well as displacing another candidate of merit in the subsequent year from getting a seat in the current professional course. Exceptions apart, this would be the inevitable result having a chain reaction, which obviously would be adverse to the interests of larger sections of students. The University has issued the prospectus under which the petitioner took the entrance test being fully aware of Clause 18 of the brochure which was published and circulated by the University at the beginning of the year.

We find substance in the submission of the respondents that acceptance of the contention of the petitioner would tantamount to encouraging unfair practice in the professional colleges. Most of the medical institutions/colleges are run by the State and huge investment of the State is involved in running such colleges/hospitals. To permit a candidate to leave the course mid-way just because the student can afford to pay the money would not be an acceptable contention in the eyes of law or even social welfare of the public. We are of the considered view that it would encourage the students to leave the course mid-way and waste seats in turn to the disadvantage of all concerned. Every college works on different kind of seats i.e. paid, free seats, seats reserved for NRIs and other categories. The mere fact that the candidate has made payment for the academic session or he is ready to pay more would not protect the candidate from the rigours of Clause 18 of the brochure.

Another serious ramification of permitting such mid-term or after admission change of courses or institutions would be that it is bound to disturb the prescribed ratio by Medical Council of India in regard to teacher-taught ratio and patient student/doctor ratio. In law and equity, it is not possible to draw a balance between the preferential choice of a candidate in regard to course or institution and the likelihood of the adverse consequences resulting from such practice. It would give rise to chain re-action and compulsory re-allocation of seats as well.

The acceptance of contention of the petitioner is bound to have serious ramifications on the entire process universally adopted by various institutions all over the country. Permitting a petitioner to leave the course mid-stream or even after admission just because a candidate can afford to pay and take admission in a subsequent course for the choice of a better institution or subject by taking entrance examination for the current year, would result in a change reaction and would inevitably lead to wastage of seats.

It will amount to encouraging an unjust and inequitable practice which is bound to render the present system of admission disfunctional, that has stood the test of time. It would frustrate the very object sought to be achieved by implementation of such objective education policy framed by the State. This interpretation may result in hardship to a microcosm section of students but is certainly in the interest of larger students and providing stability to the existing mythology of admission to professional courses.

''For the reasons afire-stated, we find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own-costs.

Sd/- Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.