AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord admission to the petitioner in MBBS Course, 2018 in
the institute of respondent no.4 as per her merit in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (‘NEET’).
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner appeared in NEET (UG) conducted by CBSE, New Delhi for the purpose of grant of
admission in MBBS Course; the petitioner scored 351 marks and her percentile was 90.43. For taking admission in the medical colleges in Rajasthan,
the petitioner got herself registered with the Counselling Board, Jaipur, wherein, in the registration form the petitioner indicated respondent no.4 college
as her first choice.
It is indicated that at the end of allotment of students through Counselling Board, there were 35 seats vacant at respondent no.4 college, respondent
no.4 college issued notification dated 27/8/2018 inviting applications from the registered candidates for filling up the remaining vacant seats, counselling
was scheduled on 30/8/2018 between 11.00 am to 5.00 pm. It is claimed that the petitioner submitted her online application form on 29/8/2018 along
with requisite documents, however, when the petitioner went for counselling on 30/8/2018 at the scheduled place at about 11.30 am, it was announced
that all the remaining 35 vacant seats were filled in. It is alleged that none of the candidate was called and no list of selected candidates was published
and the entire process was secretly undertaken. It is further alleged that large number of candidates, who had obtained less marks than the petitioner
were given admission and when the office of the Director, Medical Education was approached in this regard, the same was not responded. In view of
the above averments, the prayer as indicated hereinbefore has been made.
On notices being issued, reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent no.4 raising preliminary objections. It is inter alia indicated that the
petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court. It is claimed that the advertisement was issued on 27/8/2018 by the college regarding
admission against residual vacant seats, advertisement was published in Times of India as well as Dainik Navjyoti on 28/8/2018 and was uploaded on
the website of the college on 27/8/2018 itself and online applications were invited latest by 29/8/2018 by 5.00 pm. It is contended that the averments
made by the petitioner that advertisement dated 27/8/2018 was uploaded on the website on 29/8/2018 is false.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner had applied for the vacant seat after the time schedule given in the advertisement i.e. after
5.00 pm. Upto 5.00 pm, the respondent college had received 58 application forms against 35 left out seats and as the application filed by the petitioner
was beyond the time schedule, the same was not entertained. Those candidates, who had applied in time, they were granted admission as per their
merit.
Further submissions have been made that process of counselling was completed on 30/8/2018, reporting & joining was completed on 31/8/2018 and
after a lapse of 10 days, the petitioner has raised grievance before the Addl. Director, Medical Education on 10/9/2018 for which delay there is no
explanation and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Additional submission has been made in the reply that one Prince Kumar Yadav, who was granted admission in the second round of counselling by the
Counselling Board has resigned due to personal reasons, resulting in vacancy having arisen in the answering respondent college leaving one seat
vacant and that respondent was ready to accord admission to the petitioner subject to permission granted by the Medical Council of India.
A rejoinder to the reply has been filed inter alia questioning the stand taken by the respondent regarding petitioner filing the application after the time
indicated in the advertisement. It is submitted that such cut-off time has not been indicated in the information booklet issued for the purpose of
admission and, therefore, the respondents cannot rely on such cut-off time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the admission to the petitioner despite her being higher in
merit is ex facie illegal inasmuch as the based on her merit she was entitled to grant of admission, which has been denied to her on flimsy ground and,
therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner was simply required to apply pursuant to the vacant seats and appear for counselling, which was done
by her and merely because the cut-off time had been fixed by the college on its own in the advertisement, the same cannot deprive the petitioner from
grant of admission based on her merit and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the advertisement is quite clear and specific, wherein, the applicant was required to
apply online by 29/8/2018 by 5.00 pm and the counsellilng was fixed on 30/8/2018 from 11.00 am to 5.00 pm. Admittedly, the petitioner applied after
the cut-off time i.e. 5.00 pm and, therefore, her candidature was not considered.
Further submissions have been made that those who had applied in time, admissions have been granted strictly in accordance with their merit and
other than the petitioner none has raised any objection in this regard and, therefore, the petitioner having failed to comply with the advertisement
cannot raise the grievance regarding non-grant of admission.
Further submissions have been made that as the admissions were granted on 31/8/2018 and already the cut-off date for grant of admission in terms of
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has expired, though the additional submission has been made by the respondent college regarding availability
of a vacant seat on account of resignation of one student, now even that admission cannot be granted.
Learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, though no reply has been filed, submitted that once the time schedule as laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the counselling is over and the session has already started, the petitioner cannot now be granted admission even on
the vacant seat as submitted by respondent no.4 in its reply. Even otherwise, without providing opportunity to other candidates, the said seat could not
have been filled in merely because the petitioner chose to approach this Court.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that after two rounds of counselling and mop up round, 35 seats in the respondent no.4 college remained vacant, which were to be
filled in by the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 issued advertisement dated 27/8/2018 (Annex.6) requiring the registered candidates to apply
latest by 29/8/2018 by 5.00 pm and counselling was scheduled to be held on 30/8/2018.
Admittedly, the petitioner submitted her application on 29/8/2018 at 5.50 pm and, therefore, on account of such delayed application, the respondents did
not consider the candidature of the petitioner, who admittedly had higher marks than the candidates who were granted admission on the vacant seats
pursuant to the counselling held on 30/8/2018.
As to whether the respondents were justified in providing for a cut-off time and, thereafter, not to consider the delayed application is the issue in the
present writ petition.
The publication of the advertisement on 27/8/2018,which though has been alleged by the petitioner to have been uploaded by the respondent no.4 on
29/8/2018, on account of material placed by the respondents, it is well established that the same was uploaded on 27/8/2018 itself and was published in
newspaper on 28/8/2018. Once the petitioner chose to apply pursuant to the advertisement, it was required of the petitioner to comply with the
requirements of the advertisement and it was also required of the respondents to follow the stipulations made in the advertisement, which provided for
a cut-off time by which the completed form was to be submitted, which the petitioner admittedly failed.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the counselling was fixed on 30/8/2018 between 11.00 am to 5.00 pm, there was no
requirement even of filing the application before hand and the petitioner could have walked in on 30/8/2018 between the time fixed by the respondent
and the respondent was bound to consider the candidature of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
The respondents were well within their bounds when they published the advertisement on 27/8/2018 fixing the cut-off time for uploading the online
application and, thereafter, grant admission based on merit of the eligible candidates. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that respondents have
granted admission to any other candidate, who had applied after the cut-off date/time and the petitioner has been discriminated. Further, no grievance
has been raised by any one, as claimed by respondents, that those who applied in time, admissions have been granted against merit list and in view
thereof, the submissions made in this regard by the petitioner seeking to question the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the
petitioner, has no substance.
So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the vacant available seat on account of one selected candidate having
left the course in between is concerned, as the cut-off date for grant of admission has already expired, the petitioner only on account of her filing the
petition cannot claim precedence over other eligible candidates, no direction in this regard, contrary to the cut-off set up by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, can be granted.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.