AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated l-10-1992, passed in Writ Petition No. 510/1987, allowing the writ
petition and regularising the provisional admission granted to respondent No. 1in the M.B.B.S. Course.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 had made an application for her admission to the M.B.B.S, Course, which was
rejected by appellant No. I. She filed a writ petition against the said order of the Competent Authority. The Court by its order dated 1-7-1987
granted her interim relief allowing her to sit in the entrance test provisionally. Later on, the writ petition was allowed to be amended and the Court
by its order dated 12-12-1987 granted provisional admission to respondent No. 1 in the M.B.B.S. Course. Against the order allowing amendment
of the writ petition. A Letters Patent Appeal came to be filed by the appellants. The same, however, was later on disposed of at the behest of the
appellants with a direction to the learned single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. I was allowed to
continue her course which she has already completed.
The learned single Judge finally decided the writ petition on 1-10-1992 and regularised the provisional admission in question.
The learned single Judge appears to have placed reliance on Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (Deemed University) Vs.
Abhinav Taneja and others, while disposing of the writ petition and regularising the provisional admission of the respondent No. I. It has been
observed by him that the respondent has completed the course and, therefore, on the ground of justice and equity, it would not be proper to
dislodge her at this late stage.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition.
It may be stated at the very outset that we were astonished to notice that the appellants in the memo of appeal have mainly assailed the order of
the Court granting provisional admission to the respondent in the M.B.B.S. Course, forgetting that the said order has since got meged into the final
order, regularising such admission. The provisional admission in question itself was never challenged by the appellants by way of an appeal. There
are no grounds given in the memo of appeal challenging the final order regularising the provisional admission, except stating that it is not sustainable
in law.
It is not disputed that the learned single Judge has not gone into the merits of the case for the reason that the respondent has already completed
M.B.B.S. Course after having put five years of her precious life into it. She is a girl student and was granted provisional admission as far back as
on 12-12-1987 by a Division Bench of this Court, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. The order granting her provisional
admission was not objected to by the appellants and nor was it appealed against. The learned single Judge has finally disposed of the writ petition
on 1-10-1992 regularising the provisional admission in question. For about five years, the appellants were in deep slumber and allowed the
respondent to complete her five years M.B.B.S. Course. By no stretch of imagination, could it be just and equitable for the learned single Judge to
dislodge a girl student after she had completed the M.B.B.S. Course and, that too, with the consent and knowledge of the appellants. No doubt, it
is the right of the appellants to file the Letters Patent Appeal, but it is too late in the day to ruin the career of a girl student by dislodging her from
her present position. The appellants have slept over their right and challenging the order of provisional admission and have waited for five long
years for the disposal of the writ petition, and, in the meanwhile, the respondent completed the course. It was with the connivance and consent of
the appellants that the respondent was allowed to continue her course till the final disposal of the writ petition. We wonder as to how should it lie in
the mouth of the appellants to put the clock back and change things and, that too, after five long years, and unseat the respondent, the more so,
when she has since finished the course and is at the threshold of her bright career.
Whatever the merit position of the respondent in the entrance list which now is only the past history of 1987, the fact remains that she was
granted provisional admission by a Division Bench of this Court, which order was not challenged by the appellants and she was allowed to
complete the course smoothly. If there was any short fall in her merit position in the entrance test, it has been allowed to be condoned by the
appellants wittingly or unwittingly. It was in the same set of circumstances, that in Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (Deemed
University) Vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, , the Supreme Court observed as under at page 1224:
Since the respondents students stand already admitted and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents
due to lapse of time, we do not propose to interfere with their pursuit of the course, and dismiss the appeals.
We have given our serious consideration to the merits of this appeal, and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we find no
merit in the same, and hereby dismiss it in limine. The interim direction of this court dated 9-12-1992 shall stand vacated. Let the file be consigned
to records.