SUBHRAJIT BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 22nd December, 2011 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The case of the appellant is that at the time of admission in 2004 full disclosure of facts had been made by him on basis whereof admission in the BHMS Course was granted to him in Midnapore Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital. On completion of the said course internship of one year was undertaken by him which cannot be undertaken unless a provisional registration certificate is issued by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine, West Bengal. At the time of issuance of the provisional registration certificate the mark sheets of Higher Secondary and BHMS Course examination was scrutinized. Thereafter the appellant was appointed as a House Staff. During the said period the appellant was called upon to submit his original testimonials and permanent registration certificate. An application was filed to the Council for issuance of a final registration certificate which application was rejected. It is the refusal to grant final registration certificate, so, also the letter by which the appellant was called to submit his testimonials and final registration certificate which were challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) On consideration of the writ petition by order dated 22nd December, 2011 the writ petition was dismissed. The Trial Court did not appreciate that the registration certificate was issued by the Calcutta University, therefore, the appellant was found eligible for admission. Reliance is placed on SANATAN GAUDA V. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY, 1990 3 SCC 23, M S MUDHOL V. S D HALEGKAR, 1993 3 SCC 591 and GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY V. SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL, 2009 1 SCC 610. The University permitted entry on scrutiny and the Council rejected grant of registration certificate without considering the admission granted by the University. The issuance of the registration certificate is on completion of course, therefore, the Council could not have refused the issuance of the final registration certificate. MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR GUARDIAN V. C B S E, 2006 13 SCC 673, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY V. GIS JOSE, 2008 17 SCC 611 and ABHYUDYA SANSTHA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, 2011 6 SCC 145 cited by the Council in Rooj's case are distinguishable as in MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR GUARDIAN V. C B S E, 2006 13 SCC 673 the University had registered the appellant as a student and the college was affiliated to the University.

(3.) In MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY V. GIS JOSE, 2008 17 SCC 611 the Controller rejected the candidature in the first semester while in ABHYUDYA SANSTHA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, 2011 6 SCC 145 the institute was not registered and a false representation was made. All the cases cited above are distinguishable on facts from the instant case and will not apply to the facts of this case.