AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A candidate who sought admission to M.B.B.S. course in the year 1991 is the appellant. His attempts to get admission having failed, he filed Writ Petition No. 13612/91. A learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dt. 14-2-1992 dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal,
The appellant who was Writ Petitioner and who will hereinafter referred to a the petitioner belongs to Backward Class Community, Group-A. He belongs to Kurnool District which comes within the local area of Sri Venkateswara University. He applied in the common application form prescribed under the EAMCET Rules indicating that he need be considered for admission in any one of the following six Colleges viz., (1) Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, (2) S.V. Medical College, Tirupathi; (3) Guntur Medical College, Guntur, (4) Andhra Madical College, Visakhapatnam, (5) Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and (6) Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad. He left out Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada and Government Dental College & Hospital, Hyderabad. Petitioner was ranked as No. 2161 in the EAMCET Examination. According to him he should have been admitted in any one of the colleges which he has specified because persons with lesser marks belonging to B.C. (A) category had been admitted in those colleges. It is the case of the petitioner that he should have been admitted in either of the two Colleges in S.V. University area, by reason of the provisions contained in Rule 8(G) of the EAMCET Rules in 85% of the seats which were available for local candidates. He submits in the alternative that he ought to have been admitted at least in such quota in respect of non-state-wide Educational Institutions specified in Annexure-III of G.O.P. NO. 646, Education dt. 10-7-1979 and under Rule 8(C) of G.O. Ms. No. 1793 dt. 23-9-70. He submits further that he ought to have been admitted at least in 15% quota available to non-locals in Siddartha Medical College, in view of the fact that persons with lesser rank than he belonging to B.C.--A group were admitted in the non-local quota in that college. Petitioner submits that Rule 11 of the EAMCET rules which provides that candidates "will not be considered for the colleges not opted for in the application" as arbitrary and discriminatory and it has been so held by this Court in G. Padmaja v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada 1990 (1) ALT 375. Petitioner submits that there are adequate number of seats to provide for him even in Kurnool Medical College and there will not be any problem in directing his admission to one such existing vacancy. He submits that after the results are published on 23-9-91, he had filed an application before the convenor of the EAMCET Committee for review of his case for admission. It is on these allegations that the petitioner sought the issue of a declaration that the allotment of Reserved quota seats to B.C. (A) category to MBBS course for admission for first year course in the colleges in the State of A.P. without allotting a seat to the petitioner is irregular. He seeks a consequential direction to allot him a seat.
In the counter-affidavit the respondent denied these allegations. He submitted that petitioner had specified six colleges in his application and in terms of the EAMCET Rules, he should not have been considered for admission to any other college. Respondent asserted that the candidates were put on notice of the conditions contained in Rule 11(1) as also the note in item-16, that the candidates would not be considered for any college not mentioned in the application form. Respondent had asserted further that the last candidate belonging to B.C. (A) category admitted in the college in the S.V. University area held rank No. 2091 and candidate in Nagarjuna University area belonging to B.C. (A) category held rank No. 2139 whereas the last such candidate in Osmania and Gandhi Medical colleges had secured rank No. 511. Petitioner secured the rank 2161. Obviously therefore, he could not be admitted as a candidate belonging to B.C.(A) category in any one of the six colleges which he had specified in the application. Petitioner not having applied for admission to Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada or the Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad was not considered for admission to those colleges. Respondent admitted that non-local candidates belonging to B.C.(A) group with lesser rank than the petitioner had been admitted in Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada. It is asserted that the petitioner, not having applied for admission to that college, cannot now complain of admission of another student. It is further submitted that the petitioner not having impleaded that student as a party, is not entitled to assail that admission. It is submitted lastly that the course commenced long back and the petitioner cannot now seek admission during the middle of the term. Respondent stoutly denied the existence of a vacancy in which petitioner can be admitted now. On the other hand, counsel submitted that the results of the EAMCET examination 92 have already been published and the admissions are likely to commence soon.
The main point which counsel for the petitioner urges is that the learned single judge did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. Counsel submits that the learned single judge should have held Rule 11 of the EAMCET Rules which provides that candidates not be considered for admission to any other college which they have not opted for is arbitrary and discriminatory, as per the observations contained in G. Padmaja. He submits that the candidates were required to exercise their option without knowing their ranks and insisting as such an option was unreasonable. His next submission is that denial of admission to him while admitting another candidate belonging to B.C. (A) group with a lesser rank than he is discriminatory and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
These submissions are repeated before us. Counsel placed reliance on a number of decisions in support of his submission that in view of the fact that at least one student with lesser rank than he was admitted, there may be a direction to admit the petitioner to one of . the existing vacancies or at least in the course for the next year. Reference was made to Dr. Vinay Rampal Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, , State of Punjab Vs. Bhagwant Singh and Others, , Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, , Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar, AIR 1989 SC 119, Sonu Balhara v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 1989 (6) SLR 67. Reference was also made to the decision in Sida Nitinkumar Laxmankumar Laxmanbhai and Another Vs. Gujarat University and Others, and State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc., .
The initial hurdle which the petitioner has to cross is the objection taken by the respondent that petitioner had condined his application only to six colleges in none of which, a candidate belonging to B.C. (A) group with lesser rank than he has been admitted. He was entitled to be considered as a local candidate of S.V. University area and a non-local candidate in respect of Medical College, Visakhapatnam and in the Colleges in the Osmania University Area. The submission of the petitioner is that under Rule 3 of the EAMCET Rules, rank in EAMCET 91 shall be the only basis of selection into M.B.B.S./B. D.S. courses irrespective of the colleges specified in the prospectus. Counsel submits that the wording of Rule 3 is such that admission shall be governed only by rank in EAMCET "irrespective of region and college for admission to all the colleges specified in the prospectus." Petitioner has no case that rank alone and nothing else shall govern the claim of the candidates for admission. This is obviously because he claims admission as B.C. (A) candidate and admission on the basis of such reservation is a rule which supplements Rule 3. He sought to rely upon reservation for local candidates which is another supplementary rule. Yet other such supplementary rules of reservation have also to be observed in addition to rank in the EAMCET. If that be the position the entire prospectus has to be put in perspective including the provisions contained in Rule II which provides that a candidate will not be considered for the colleges not opted for in the application.
It is of course true that there is a stray observation in the decision of Upendralal Waghray, J. in G. Padmaja to the effect that option which is exercised without knowing the rank of the candidates is unreasonable and therefore Rule 11 is unsustainable. The same contention which was urged before the learned single Judge was rejected for the reason that Rule 11 has since been amended and recast and the defect in the former rules which occasioned adverse Governments is no longer part of that rule. We have been referred to Rule 11 which was considered in G. Padmaja and the rule as it stood in EAMGET Rules 1991. We are satisfied that there has been such substantial changes in the rule as not to apply the observations contained in that decision to the rule as it stands at present.
Sri Ramanujan, counsel for the respondent-University submitted that application forms prescribed for EAMCET-91 were common for admission to any or all of the colleges affiliated to the University of Health Sciences of the State. Petitioner himself understood that Rule 4 provides only for one common application form for admission to all or any of the Colleges. The facility of providing common application form was to avoid a candidate submitting separate application forms in respect of each of the colleges. The provision contained in Rule 11 putting a candidate on notice that he may apply for admission in any number of colleges or all the colleges affiliated to the Health University, is a facility to help the candidates. They may indicate their preference by the order in which they mention such colleges. Nothing prevented the petitioner from applying for admission to all the nine colleges in the State including the Siddartha Medical College. Even though he applied for admission to the Medical College, Visakhapatnam he did not mention Siddartha Medical College which also fell within the local area of Andhra and Nagarjuna Universities. Likewise, he did not apply for admission to the Dental college and Hospital affiliated to Osmania University, even though he had mentioned the Osmania and Gandhi Medical Colleges falling within the local area of that University. Obviously, petitioner had his preference of the colleges mentioned in his application. He had also his aversions. If the common application form is to be understood as giving the option to the candidate to apply in one common form for admission to all the nine colleges or any one or more of them in the order of preference indicated by the candidate, the rule providing for such option to the candidates cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. If separate applications were to be made that would have been the result of voluntary choise made by the applicant before he appears for the examination. If such voluntary choice is allowed in the common application form, it cannot be held that the opportunity to indicate his preference or option before knowing his rank in the EAMCET examination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Viewing the common application in its true perspective as application for admission in different colleges but indicating the order of preference, it is difficult to accept the passing observations contained in G. Padmaja as laying down the correct law. A rule enabling a candidate to file a common application in respect of one or more colleges affiliated to the University instead of filing separate applications and enabling him to indicate the order of preference in which his candidature will be considered, allow free choice rather than imposing an obligation on the candidate. The choice which the candidate knowingly exercises as to the number of colleges to which he should seek admission cannot be considered as arbitrary. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is not right in his submission that he ought to have been considered for admission to colleges other than those which he had specified in the application notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the EAMCET Rules.
We are of the opinion that the fact that the petitioner had not impleaded the student belonging to B.C.(A) category who was admitted in Siddartha Medical College because he had indicated that college in his application is fatal to the grant of any relief to the petitioner for admission into that college.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least on compassionate considerations, his case for admission may be considered as per the observations of the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above. Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that mid-term admissions after the courses have commenced have been repeatedly deprecated by the Supreme Court. He submitted that a direction to admit the petitioner in the next course may result in depriviation of a seat for a more deserving candidate. He submitted that nothing prevented the petitioner from appearing the EAMCET 1992 examination, and compete with other candidates specifying the colleges in which his claim for admission may be considered.
We are not inclined to direct that the petitioner who had specified the college in which alone his claim for admission may be considered, shall be admitted to another college because a candidate with lesser marks than he in B.C. (A) group was admitted in that other college. Had the petitioner specified Siddartha Medical College in his application, he would have been admitted in preference to that other candidate with lesser rank than he. Petitioner having exercised his choice not to apply for admission in that college, cannot now find fault with the respondent in admitting a candidate who had applied for admission in that College.
Nor are we impressed by the submission that since there are seats available in other colleges, petitioner may be considered for admission in one of those colleges.
In State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta the Supreme Court observed (at page 938):
"Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full oppoutunity to study full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also works an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragratic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained".
In State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Another, , the Supreme Court deprecated the issue of directions by the High Court to the Government and Education Department on humanitarian grounds to hold supplementary examination for enabling students who are not otherwise entitled for admission to appear in the examination. The Supreme Court observed that :
"Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law" and "the directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustain able in law."
In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal Vs. State of U.P. and others, , the Court rejected an application for mid term admission in the following terms:
"This is a technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct. We accordingly reject the application".
Counsel for the petitioner referred us to the decision in State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Others, . The question which fell for consideration in that decision was the correctness of addition of 5% marks based on college (college based institutional preference). That was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. No such question arises for consideration in these proceedings. We therefore affirm that the learned single Judge is right in refusing to apply that decision to the facts of the present case.
Counsel for the petitioner made an earnest appeal that there may at least be a direction to the convener/selection committee of the EAMCET, to exercise its power to revise its decision under Rule 15 of the EAMCET Rules and direct admission of the petitioner.
It is doubtful whether that power can be exercised to consider the petitioner for admission in Siddartha Medical College which he had not mentioned in his application. Even though Rule 15 grants power in wide terms, it cannot enable the selection committee to grant admission to any of the, candidates to a college which was not mentioned in the application. That relief is therefore beyond the scope of Rule 15. No purpose will be served by directing consideration of the application which the petitioner is alleged to have filed under the above rule.
For all these reasons, the Writ Appeal has to be dismissed affirming the findings of the learned single Judge and we do so. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.