AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.G. Ramesh, J—Heard. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking for a direction to the University to approve admissions of petitioner Nos. 2 to 20 to various nursing courses.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the last date stipulated for uploading of names of the students for admission on the University''s website is 30.12.2014 till 5.00 PM.
It is not the case of petitioner No. 1-college that the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 20 were uploaded online on the University''s website before the stipulated date and time. It is also not its case that it submitted the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 20 to the University through e-mail before the stipulated date and time.
A similar matter had come up before this Court in W.P. Nos. 28966-28968/2015 which were disposed of on 14.07.2015. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made therein:
"7. It is not the case of petitioner No. 1-college that the names of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were uploaded online on the University''s website before the stipulated date & time i.e. before 5.30 p.m. on 30.09.2013. It is also not the case of petitioner No. 1-college that it submitted the names of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 to the University through e-mail by 5.30 p.m. on 30.09.2013.
To examine as to whether strict adherence to the admission time schedule is mandatory, it is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatishgarh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2413 : (2012) 5 SCALE 328 : (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) AIRSCW 3354 :
"78.4. With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main petitions finally, subject to the convenience of the Court. We may refer to the dictum of this Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others, (2004) 1 JT 49 Supp : (2004) 4 SCALE 434 : (2004) 6 SCC 76 : (2004) 3 SCR 1119 : (2004) AIRSCW 2457 : (2004) 3 Supreme 552 in this regard."
(underlining and emphasis supplied)
The following observations made by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2005 SC 666 : (2005) 1 CTC 764 : (2005) 2 ESC 198 : (2005) 1 JT 340 : (2005) 2 SCC 65 : (2005) 1 SCR 380 : (2005) AIRSCW 471 : (2005) 2 Supreme 658 , also require to be noticed:
"32. Having regard to the professional courses, it deserves to be emphasized that all concerned including Governments, State and Central both, MCI/DCI, colleges - new or old, students, Boards, universities, examining authorities, etc. are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for; there should not be midstream admissions; admissions should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota of anyone, whether State or management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year is also not permissible."
(emphasis supplied)
In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the two decisions referred to above, strict adherence to the admission time schedule is mandatory. Accordingly, online uploading of admission statement on the University''s website along with students'' photos before the date and time stipulated in the calendar of events notified by the University is mandatory. Hence, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned communication dated 03.07.2015 issued by respondent No. 2-University to warrant interference by this Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petitions relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. 35028-35033/2015 disposed of on 11.09.2015. As could be seen from the said judgment, the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatishgarh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2413 : (2012) 5 SCALE 328 : (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) AIRSCW 3354 and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2005 SC 666 : (2005) 1 CTC 764 : (2005) 2 ESC 198 : (2005) 1 JT 340 : (2005) 2 SCC 65 : (2005) 1 SCR 380 : (2005) AIRSCW 471 : (2005) 2 Supreme 658 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
In the light of the observations (extracted at para 4 above) made by the Supreme Court in the two judgments referred to above, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.