SUSHILMACHHAN Vs. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner hails from Himachal Pradesh. He completed his 12th standard during the year 2000 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of education. He was admitted to the first year medical course for the academic year 2000-01 in the second respondent-college. The petitioner contends that he has produced the marks card of the 12th standard examination held during the year March 2000, based on which he was admitted to the course. The petitioner attended the classes regularly and he has undergone the training. When the second respondent-college forwarded the admission papers of the petitioner for approval to the rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the first respondent herein, the admission of the petitioner was not approved. The petitioner contends, though he was admitted on the basis of the marks card that he had produced, he had taken examination for improvement of the Physics paper and the marks card of the Physics was furnished to the college after improvement. When he made efforts to find out why his admission is not approved neither the college nor the University gave him any satisfactory explanation for not approving his admission. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition for declaration that action of the" respondent in not approving the admission of the petitioner and in not communicating the information is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and for a direction to approve his admission for the academic year 2000-01.

(2.) THE petitioner submits, on 18-4-2002 this Court by an interim order directed the University to receive the examination fee and permit the petitioner to appear for the examination subject to the condition that he shall not claim any equity and further direction was given not to announce results. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the fee and took the examination. Subsequently, the second respondent-college by a communication dated 20-6-2002 as per Annexure-H informed the petitioner that as his admission is not approved by the University, he is discharged from the college. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition with an additional prayer. He challenged the validity of the said communication from the second respondent-college discharging him from the college and also sought for an additional relief that the discharge of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and in the alternative he sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as having been admitted for the academic year 2001-02 and allow him the benefit of training and education undergone by him and to complete the course, in which event he also sought for an additional relief of damages of Rs. 6,00,000/- for wasting one precious academic year.

(3.) THE second respondent-college has filed its statement of objections. It is contended that at the time of admission, the petitioner made a representation that he has passed Plus Two examination of the Board of secondary School of Education, Himachal Pradesh, held in March 2000 in second class and produced character certificate and migration certificate to support his claim. When he was asked to produce the marks card he stated that he has appeared for the improvement examination of physics held on 6-9-2000. When he did not produce the marks card the college wrote a letter to Himachal Pradesh Board to send the marks card and in reply to the same the communication was sent by the Board informing the college that he has secured more than 50% of the marks in the relevant subjects. However, the University by a letter dated 31-10-2001 did not approve the admission of the petitioner. Again the college made a representation for reconsideration of the issue and the petitioner was also informed about the non-approval. The college has made efforts to join him to the next year 2001-02. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not available and the college could not help the petitioner. Again when the petitioner approached the college, the college offered him a seat in I year BAMS course for the academic year 2002-03. They contend, after accepting the said offer the petitioner approached this Court making false representation. Therefore, they submit that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.