AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit-of-service, filed.
Petitioner seeks admission in course study for obtaining degree of Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery. Having faced difficulty in
pursuing his intention, he applied to this Court by WP 9212(w) of 2016 which was dismissed by order dated 3rd October, 2016. An eligibility criterion
was up for consideration. Said eligibility criterion is reproduced below :-
“The intermediate examination in science of an Indian University or board or other recognized examining body with Physics, Chemistry and
Biology which shall include a practical test in these subjects and also English as a compulsory subject.â€
By said order dated 3rd October, 2016 a learned single Judge of this Court was of following view on which writ petition was dismissed :-
“Eligibility criteria noted in the order dated May 9, 2016 is not the correct eligibility criteria as obtaining since the eligibility criteria has underwent
change. The eligibility criteria presently obtaining is as set out in the order. Regulation 4(i)(b) contemplates English as a compulsory subject. The
petitioner has taken English as a second language. Although the second language is also a compulsory subject, it cannot be equated with that of a first
language paper. When the regulation has prescribed English as a compulsory subject it means English as a compulsory first subject and not otherwise.
Viewed from such perspective, the petitioner does not have requisite eligibility qualification to participate in the course.â€
Petitioner preferred appeal which was allowed by judgment dated 18th May, 2017 in which, inter alia, following was said :-
“It is only this aspect of the matter, which is to be considered by us. From a reading of Regulation 4(1)(b) it does not appear that the regulations
provide English subject as first compulsory subject. A wider meaning of the word ‘compulsory’ is, therefore, to be given i.e. a candidate has
passed English language paper as one of the compulsory so as to say that it would be suffice for fulfilling the criteria for admission as Physics,
Chemistry, and Biology are elective subjects of the appellant/petitioner.â€
Above are submissions made on behalf of petitioner by Mr. Ghoshal, learned advocate. He submits, admission has been orally denied by respondent
no. 5 and there should be interference. In spite of service respondent no. 5, being the concerned answering respondent, is unrepresented. Mr. Roy,
learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 6 and submits, respondent no. 5 is the authority that will give admission. He seeks adjournment
to take instructions regarding whether vacant seat is available in current academic year. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent
no. 1 and submits, his client is not against petitioner getting admission. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 3 and
submits, his client is the authority that will grant Doctor’s registration certificate and as such should have a say in candidates getting admission to
the degree course.
On demonstration of service and omission to appear, this Court adversely presume against respondent no. 5 particularly when petitioner's submission is
that there was oral denial of admission at counseling stage. So far as submissions of respondent no. 3 are concerned, if said respondent has a
grievance regarding selection of candidates for course study, it must duly urge that grievance as may be advised. The only eligibility criterion being
subject matter of writ petition having been decided in favour of petitioner, on appeal, petitioner cannot be denied admission. If he is still to be denied,
good reasons must be given.
Respondent no. 5 will, within period of two weeks from date of communication of this order, grant admission to petitioner or give reasons as to why
same cannot be done. In event grant of admission is not possible for reason of there not existing vacant seat in current academic year then said
respondent will grant admission to petitioner in following academic year. However, vacant seat not available in current academic year must be
demonstrated to petitioner by respondent no. 5. Giving of admission or refusal thereof giving good reasons or by demonstration of there being no
vacant seat available in current academic year must be done either way within time directed.
Writ petition is disposed of.