N. Anandan and Others vs Leelabai Rajendran and Others

R. Sudhakar, J.—Since both the matters arise out of the order dated 16.07.2015, made in W.A.(MD) No. 277 of 2015, for the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in this order as arrayed in the Contempt Petition.

Here is a case where the contempt petitioner/writ appellant''s daughter was selected, provisionally and admitted in the 1st respondent/private institution in the contempt petition in Homeopathy Course (B.H.M.S), for the academic year 2012-2013. His daughter completed the first year junior course and passed all the examinations in March, 2013. When she was undergoing first year senior course, on 20.10.2013, on verification of her certificate, it was found that the daughter of the petitioner was under aged and therefore it was informed that her candidature for the first year senior examinations would not be accepted by the 2nd respondent University. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there was no formal order of disqualification or removal from the rolls of the 1st respondent college.

Be that as it may, the petitioner, father of the student, approached the writ court seeking a direction to the respondents in the contempt petition to permit his daughter Hemamalini to complete the first year senior course in B.H.M.S., 2013-2014. That relief was rejected by the learned Single Judge. However, in paragraph No. 16 of the order, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner''s daughter for re-doing the first year course in the first respondent college, if such a course of action is viable and permissible, by taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances of the case. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner appealed the matter in W.A.(MD) No. 277 of 2015. The Division Bench, by order dated 16.07.2015, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, However, in paragraph 16 of the order, the following order was passed:

"16. The appellant has sent a letter in March 2015 to the respondents requesting them to allow his daughter to study BHMS degree course from first year in first respondent college, as per the observation of the writ Court. The second respondent has stated that it is for the third respondent to consider such request for the Government seat and for first respondent to consider for management quota. The respondents 1 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the appellant sent in March 2015 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to accommodate the petitioner in this academic year in Government Quota."

Contending that the above order of this Court has not been complied with, contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner.

In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has filed an application in Rev.A.(MD) No. 152 of 2015 seeking review of the order of the Division Bench, primarily contending that while there is a direction issued to the respondents to consider the representation, a positive direction has also been issued that the student should be accommodated in the academic year 2014-2015, under the Government Quota. The grievance of the 3rd respondent department is that, at that juncture, selection process was not started and therefore the direction to accommodate the candidate while dismissing the writ appeal would go counter to the direction to consider the representation. According to the 3rd respondent/review petitioner, there is an element of confusion as to how the order should be worked out.

We have heard the learned counsel for the contempt petitioner/appellant, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent/review petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent University.

Let us now clarify as to whether the order of the Division Bench in paragraph 16, as extracted above, creates any confusion for the 3rd respondent/review petitioner. We find that the learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to consider the claim of the candidate for redoing the first year course, meaning thereby her case should be considered for the subsequent period. The Division Bench also of the view that the representation should be considered, so that the candidate, who was under aged during the period in question, that is, 2012-2013, by then become major would be eligible to be considered on merit. Since selection was under Government Quota and she was not formally removed from the rolls of the 1st respondent college, it is the plea of the learned counsel for the candidate that she could have been accommodated in the subsequent years to re-do the course from the first year.

The Division Bench was of the view that the case of the candidate should be considered, either under the management quota or the Government Quota. The direction to consider the representation was not considered either by the management or the Government for that academic year. On the said premise, there could be no confusion in the order of the Court. We find that the direction of the Division Bench to accommodate the petitioner''s daughter during the academic year, under the Government Quota, for admission from the 1st year was only in relation to the representation given to accommodate her, either under the management quota or the Government quota. That is all what has been stated in the order at paragraph 16 of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. Therefore, there is no reason to clarify or review the order.

Coming to the contempt petition, since the direction of this Court is only to consider the claim for accommodating the candidate for the subsequent year, that is to state, to re-do the course from the beginning of the first year, we would expect the Government to accommodate the candidate, if there is any vacancy that would arise in the present academic year 2015-2016, taking note of the fact that the Division Bench directed the third respondent/review applicant to accommodate the student in the present academic year. This can be done either on a vacancy that would arise consequent to non-joining of selected candidates or in the alternative by asking the Central Council for Homeopathy for additional seat. We call upon the third respondent/review petitioner to address the Central Council for Homeopathy for providing an additional seat for the daughter of the petitioner in the above circumstances. This direction is issued keeping in mind the order dated 16.07.2015. We take note that the candidate''s admission, originally, was under Government Quota. There is no official communication of cancellation or removal of the candidate from the rolls of the college. In that situation, the third respondent may take necessary steps to approach the Central Council for Homeopathy for providing an additional seat, if no vacancy arises in the present academic year under Government Quota for the student to redo the course from the first year.

With the above observation, both the contempt petition and the review application are disposed of. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.