DEVARAKONDA MADHUSUDHAN Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions complain that the letters dated 5-10-1994 of the Pnncipal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, bearing Nos. 6804/B2/OMC/94/25278 and 6804/B2/OMC/94/47875 respectively reached them by post on 18-10- 1994. The Petitioners also filed the postal covers in which the said letters were sent to them,which bear the postal stamp with the date 18-10-1994 which establishes beyond doubt that they received the said intimations only on 18-10-1994. By the said letters, the petitioners were informed that they had been conditionally and provisionally selected for admission into 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1994-95 and allotted to Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad". They were required to report to the Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad on or before 4 P.M., on 18-10-1994". The said letters also State that if they did not so report for admission by 18-10-1994, it would be deemed that they were not interested in joining the college and that their provisional selections would stand cancelled without any notice and that no request for extention of time for admission could be given under any circumstances. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 18900 and 18901 of 1994 secured 92nd and 127th ranks respectively in the E.A.M.C.E.T.- 1994 amongst candidates seeking admission into 1st year M.B.B.S. course for 1994-95. The petitioners were refused admission because they could not report for admission by 18-10-1994.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's statement that the said letters were received by them on 18-10-1994 is not denied. It is only stated that the Principal's Office of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad despatched the said letters on 11-10-1994 and reliance is placed on Rule 13 of the Rules for admission into 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the Academic Year 1994-95. The said Rule 13 has the heading 'JOINING TIME'and to the extent it is relevant, is as follows:-

(3.) The respondents are not right in relying on the said Rule in refusing to give admission to the petitioners in view of the peculiar facts of the present cases The said Rule has to be interpreted reasonably and in such manner that it is not rendered arbitrary, iniquitous and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.'Failure to join', in the context in which that expression occurs, implies that the candidate has the knowledge or information that he or she is required to join by a particular date and that the candidate is in a position to join on that date. When the candidate has no such information because of the non-receipt of the intimation sent by the College, there can be no failure of the candidate to join the Course in time. Any other interpretation of the said Rule would make it absurd leading to unfair and wholly undeserved and deleterious consequences. Students who have struggled hard to attain a rank in the entrance test as would entitle them for a seat in a Medical College, deserve a fair deal, to say the least. These days it is common knowledge that rcgi stored letters norm ally take a week to reach the addressee-or even more, if the candidate is in a remote village. The respondents ought to have taken that circumstance into consideration and despatched the intimation letters well in advance. It is also possible that some times even registered letters also are lost. In such cases, it all depends on how promptly the effected candidate seeks redress and whether third party interests get involved and effected as in the case when another candidate already has been given the seat due to the remissness on the part of the effected candidate. The University and College authorities cannot adopt a wooden unconcern whatever the circumstances.