LAWS(CAL)-1981-2-16

GADADHAR PAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

Decided On February 19, 1981
GADADHAR PAN Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained against the show cause notice issued on 10-9-80 by the Secretary, Council for Post Graduate Studies in Medicine, Calcutta University, directing the petitioner to show cause why his studentship in the M. D. (Pediatrics) Course will not be cancelled forthwith without any further intimation to him whatsoever on the ground that the petitioner suppressed in his application form the statement that he was in the employment of the Director of Health Services, West Bengal, at the time he applied for admission to the said course.

(2.) The petitioner passed M.B.B.S. Examination in 1975 and he was admitted to the Diploma in Child Health Course in 1978 after being selected through competitive examination and being successful, obtained Diploma in Child Health. The petitioner thereafter was appointed as Research Assistant (Pediatrics Gastro-Entrology) for one year in Calcutta Hospital in April 1979. On 12-2-80 he was appointed as Medical Officer, General Duty, on a purely temporary basis and he was posted at Sabang Primary Health Centre, District Midnapore. It is stated that the petitioner was thus posted on deputation at Uttar Machagram Primary Health Centre, District Midnapore. In April 1980 the petitioner submitted an application for admission to M. D. (Pediatrics) course of the University of Calcutta for the session commencing in 1980 and undoubtedly in the competitive examination he stood first on merit amongst the candidates participated in the said competitive examination having obtained highest marks in the written test. The petitioner tendered his resignation from the service under the Government of West Bengal on and from 4-8-80 and the Joint Secretaries Post Graduate Admission Board in Medicine, Calcutta University, intimated the petitioner on 6-8-80 about his selection for the admission to the M. D. (Pediatrics) course for the session commencing in 1980. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 500 as tuition fees for the whole course on 20-8-80 and he was thus admitted to the M. D. (Pediatrics) course. It has been stated that on coming to know that a representation has been made against him by some interested parties, he made a representation to the respondents through his advocate which has been made a part of the petition as annexure B to the petition stating, inter alia, that he resigned from the service long before he was admitted in the said Post-Graduate Medicine Course and as such he has not violated any provisions of the terms and conditions laid down while inviting applications for admission in the said course. It has also been stated specifically in paragraph 5 of the said representation that a number of candidates although employed in the government service were allowed and are still prosecuting the M. D. course of studies and though the University issued show cause notice upon them, ultimately did not take any action against those candidates and specific names were mentioned therein of those candidates. It has also been stated in paragraph 6 of the said representation that six candidates who were actually in service while prosecuting studies were brought to the notice of the University and in fact a proceeding was initiated, but ultimately the same was dropped. This representation, it appears, was made to the Joint Secretary of the Admission Board for Post-Graduate Courses on 2-9-80. A copy of the representation was also sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University. But it has been stated nothing was done in this direction by the University authorities and a reply was sent on 13-9-80 to the petitioner's Advo- cate by the Registrar, Calcutta University, to the following effect:--

(3.) An A.O. has been affirmed by Sri Pratip Kumar Mukherjee, Registrar, Calcutta University, on 5-1-81. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner did not give the necessary particulars as required to be given in the application form, particularly item No. 20 has not been filled up and item No. 23 clearly specifies that in case of suppression or distortion of facts as declared by a candidate and non-submission of the documents, the application for admission will be liable to be cancelled outright. Paragraph 15 merely says that the deponent does not admit any of the allegations made in paragraph 28 of the petition and in paragraph 17 of the said A.O. there has been a mere denial of the specific facts averred in paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the application. Therefore, practically this affidavit is totally silent on the specific statements and allegations raised in paragraphs 28, 29, 30 of the petition that candidates who are in the employ of the West Bengal Health Service though in spite of their not stating this fact, were admitted and they were permitted to prosecute their studies while they were drawing their emoluments as employees under the Government of West Bengal. There is also no reply to the specific allegation that though in some cases the University authorities started proceedings, but subsequently at the request of respondent No. 4, that is, the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, the proceedings were dropped and as a result the candidates who did not comply with the terms and conditions laid down by the University Council for admission to the M.D./M.S. course, were permitted to continue their studies and at the same time were allowed to have their pay from the Government and in spite of attention of the authorities concerned being drawn to the same, nothing was done.