ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had participated in the Combined Pre Medical Test (CPMT) examination held by the University of Roorkee for the year 1999. By mens of this writ petition, he had challenged the validity of the said test conducted by the University of Roorkee on the ground that it has been held in violation of the direction contained in the decision in the case of Tulika Ram v. State of U.P. in Wri Petition No. 418 (M/B) of 1998 decided on 15th Dec. 1998 (Reported in 1999 (2) All LJ 1045). Acccording to him, the first paragraph of the direction provides that the Chancellor shall nominate the University which shall conduct the combine premedical test. For the purpose, the Chancellor shall constitute a Committee which shall consist of six members as mentioned therein and that no University shall be assigned that task for more than a year consecutively for which reason disclosed therein.

(2.) . Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case for far as the first direction is concerned, there are three infractions. First that there was no notification issued by the State Government in terms of Section 28(5)(b) of the State Universities Act, 1973 empowering Roorkee University to hold the test. The test held by the University of Roorkee is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Secondly that no committee was constituted consistng of the six members mentioned therein by the Chancellor and such Committee could have been consulted and as such the nomination of University of Roorkee could not be valid in view of the said direction. Third that the University of Roorkee had held the CPMT test in 1998 and as such it could not be assigned the task for the year 1999 in violation of the prohibition of holding the test consequently for more than a year. In support of his contention, he contends further that in view of the said decision containing the said direction, the provision under Section 28 sub-section (5) and the notification issued under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 28 are to be read in consonance of the said direction. Any inconsistency between the direction and the said provision of law, the direction contained in the said decision would prevail. Any infraction of the said direction would render the whole test invalid and void. he then contends that though a news item was published in 'Dainik Jagaran' that the question paper of CPMT 1999 was leaked out and yet no notice thereof was taken and the test was held on the basis of the leaked out papers. He had also alleged various infirmities and irregularities in the holding of the test. On these grounds, he challenged the test and had prayed for cancellation or quashing of the entire CPMT test 1999 with the direction for holding the test through a Medical University in the State of U.P. and also to direct an enquiry in respect of irregularities committed in course of the said test through Central Bureau of Investigation and also seeking a prohibition restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the said test.

(3.) . Mr. S.N. Verma, learned counsel for the University of Roorkee on the other hand contends that the petitioner had participated in the test and was unsuccessful. In the meantime, the result of the test has been published. The writ petition was moved only about a week before the result was due to bepublished. The petitioner had never challenged the same at any point of time until a week before the result was due. On the other hand, he had participated in the test after having submitting his form on or before 27/05/1999. The initial notification was issued on 7th Jan. 1999 and thereafter, on 20th Jan., even then it was not challenged earlier. He then contends that having participated in the test, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the competence or the illegality in the selection and/or the process of selection after having been unsuccessful in the test. He relies on the decision in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 : (AIR 1986 SC 1043). He has also pointed out from the material disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University as well as on behalf of the State that the decision to hold the examination was taken before the decision in the case of Tulika Ram (supra) was rendered and thus there was no infirmity. However, it is contended by him that so far as the other directions contained in paragraph 2 to 8 of the judgment have since been complied with. Since the decision was taken before the judgment was rendered, therefore, so far as paragraph 1 of the directions was concerned could not be complied with in view of the impossibility of the situation. He conteds further that a whole examination cannot be cancelled on the basis of some infirmities pointed out by a single unsuccessful candidate jeopardising the interest of the whole community. The petitioner cannot claim any locus standi to assail the said test on the ground of any illegality or irregularities only to assert his own individual right after having been unsuccessful in the test. The petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the process apart from the alleged infraction of paragraph 1 of the direction which could lead this Court to come to a conclusion that there were irregularitiy and illegality, in the process of the test. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.