DHIMAN KAHALI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the subject matter of challenge is the refusal on the part of the Respondents to Include the petitioners name in the list of successful candidates for admission to M.D. Course in Medicine to commence in 1980. The petitioner's grievance, in short, is that he applied for admission in this discipline pursuant to the admission rules framed by the Calcutta University Council inviting applications from qualified candidates who desire to seek admission in various disciplines in M.D. Course, Undoubtedly, the petitioner sat for the written test and obained 41 marks in the written test. It is not disputed that he secured 9 marks on assessment of his merit Thus total marks secured by the petitioner are 51. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he secured two medals; one college silver medal in Ophthalmology (1977) standing first among all students of the College which is equivalent college gold medal, This merit, it has been stated, has been awarded for securing the highest marks in related subject and due to paucity of fund the gold medal could not be awarded: hence silver medal was awarded in its place. It has been stated that he secured Prosanna Kumar Lahiri gold medal on the result of the Final M.B.B.S. examination held in 1977. This gold medal was awarded by the Calcutta University. His claim is that in accordance with the rules framed by the admission Board and subsequently approved by the Calcutta University Council as referred to in Annexure 'B' to the petition he is entitled to get five marks for having secured the above-mentioned two awards in view of the rules provided in Academic Merit Assessment which runs as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1_AIR(CAL)_1981Html1.htm</FRM> According to the petitioner, he has been wrongly deprived from being given five marks specified for securing scholarship, that is, gold medal and silver medal in accordance with the rules framed by the admission Board and approved by the Calcutta University Council. As against this in paragraph 3 (e) of the Affidavit-in-Opposition sworn by Dr. Ajit Kumar Dutta, the respondent No. 4, that is, Secretary, Council for Post-graduate Studies in 'Medicine in Calcutta University stated, inter alia, that the petitioner secured 4l 1/2 marks in the written test and on the basis of the past career mark assessment he was awarded 9 1/2 marks, thus his total marks came to 51. The twenty candidates who were selected obtained 52 marks in total. It is further averred in paragraph 4 (i) of the said affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of college silver medal for standing first which he obtained in his Pharmacology examination in 1975, as he made a choice for admission to M.D. General Medicine and not in M.D. Pharmacology for which four seats are provided as will appear from Annexure 'B' to the petition. In sub-paragraph (ii) of the said paragraph it has been averred that the petitioner is also not entitled to have the benefit of his college career silver medal in Ophthalmology (1077) as his subject of choice was General Medicine and not M.S. Course in Ophthalmology.

(2.) In support of this averment the learned Advocate, Mr. Roy, has drawn my attention to Annexure 'B', that is, the proceedings of the meeting of Post-graduate admission Board held on 22nd July, 1980. Paragraph 9, Clause (iii) runs as follows : "Resolved further marks on awards/ prizes, of College/University be given in subject of choice/alliance". This proceeding was approved by the Chairman as late as on 6th August, 1980. It is curious to know in this connection that from this very proceeding it appears that the results of the admission test have been assessed after consideration by the members of the admission Board and results have been adopted about the selection of candidates in some of the disciplines in M.D. Course.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the rules framed by the University or by the Council do specify that the marks for obtaining gold medal and silver medal in the college career of an applicant should be given only if he has secured those medals in the subjects of his choice. On a plain reading of the rules and also on a plain construction of the words or in other words the terminology expressed in Clause A, it has not referred to any such conditions as tried to be contended in the above paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition. The note appended below Clause B, in my view, only qualifies so far as the assessment of marks with regard to University awards; it does not refer nor its meaning can be stretched to apply to marks as yardstick for college career in item No, A of the said career merit assessment. This will be more clear on a reference to Annexure B, that is, proceedings of the meeting held on 22nd July, 1980 of the Post-graduate admission Board. If the members of the admission Board were clear and certain in their mind that the note applies equally to A and B then they would not have taken the responsibility of considering this matter and providing for the same in a resolution which was passed as late as on 8th August, 1980, when already applications for admission had been considered and assessed on merits on the basis of the then existing rules and undoubtedly this resolution purporting to change, vary or modify rules on the basis of which the applications were invited from intending candidates was not there at the relevant time.