LAWS(ORI)-2016-10-56

SUNITA MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Decided On October 03, 2016
Sunita Mohanty Appellant
V/S
Union Of India And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research (SVNIRTAR), Olatpur in the district of Cuttack and National Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped (NIOH), B.T. Road, Koklata are the institutes under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, established to impart education in the subjects, Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT), Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (BOT) and Bachelor of Prosthetics and Orthotics (BPO). For admission to the said course for the session 2016, SVNIRTAR conducted Common Entrance Test (2016) (CET-2016) by publishing information brochure and application form to be available in the website i.e. www.svnirtar.nic.in. The last date of submission of application form was 23.05.2016. The date of entrance examination was 26.06.2016 and the tentative date for declaration of result was 20.07.2016. The petitioner having got the requisite qualification, i.e., 10+2 in Science applied for the aforesaid courses in the prescribed form by downloading the same from the website and her application having been found in order, she was permitted to appear CET-2016 on 26.06.2016 in B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar Centre. The merit list was published on 20.07.2016 in the website and the petitioner also received a letter being Ref. No. DA IA 01/CET-2016 dated 27.07.2016 of the Chairman, CET-2016-cum-Director for Counselling-cum-Admission for BPT/BOT/BPO course for the academic year 2016-17 through CET-2016 on 30.08.2016. The petitioner's Roll No. UG-G-01-676 had been indicated in the merit list having secured common rank of 228. She was informed that she was declared provisionally qualified/wait listed as per the common Rank No. 228 in the merit list prepared on the basis of performance in CET-2016 conducted by the SVNIRTAR on 20.06.2016 for admission to one of the mentioned courses at SVNIRTAR, Cuttack or NIOH, Kolkata. Accordingly, she was directed to report at SVNIRTAR, Olatpur, Cuttack for counselling-cum-admission at 9 a.m. on 30.08.2016. It was also indicated that the allotment of course would be exclusively depend upon her rank in the merit list of CET- 2016, according to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus and the number of seats available in each course in respective institutes. On 30.08.2016, as per the rank of the petitioner, she was allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. But, at the time of document verification, the NIOH counselling officials found that she had not secured 50% of marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) in qualifying +2 Science Examination, which is eligibility criteria for admission into the said course. Further, it is stated that she has secured 149 marks in PCB out of 300 marks, which is below 50% and she has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for taking admission to BPT course at NIOH, Kolkata as per "Academic Qualification" published in Clause 4.3 of the prospectus. The parents of the petitioner, referring to sub-point no.9 of point no.20 of the prospectus, though stated that marks should be rounded up to the nearest whole number, the said points are mentioned for guideline to fill up the form in the column no. 9 and 10 of the application form making round up the nearest whole number and that is not considering the eligibility criteria in the academic qualification, thus the petitioner has been denied to take admission and accordingly her candidature has been rejected having not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per prospectus CET-2016. Hence, this application.

(2.) Mr. R.C. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Clause- 4.3 of the prospectus indicates the academic qualification wherein it has been specifically mentioned that minimum aggregate of 50% marks in PCB in +2 Science Examination has to be acquired by the general category candidate to satisfy the requirement of eligibility criteria for admission to BPT, BOT and BPO courses. It is further urged that as per Clause-9 the marks should be rounded up to nearest whole number. Therefore, the petitioner having secured 149 marks in the subjects PCB, which is one mark short to 50% marks in aggregate out of total mark of 300, applying the provisions contained in Clause-9 the same has been rounded up to 150 so as to make the petitioner eligible to appear in CET-2016 and she has been qualified in the entrance test having stood in serial no.228 in the merit list, the committee allotted a seat to her at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category, subsequently the authority cannot turn around stating that the petitioner having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria in academic qualification as per prospectus of CET-2016 she is denied the admission by rejecting her candidature. Such action of the authority is hit by principle of estoppel. Therefore, seeks for interference of this Court.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties strenuously urged before this Court that as per Clause-4.3 of the Admission Bulletin of the CET-2016 wherein the eligibility criteria of the qualifying examination in +2 Science has been mentioned which clearly specifies that the students would be eligible in taking admission to BPT/BOT/BPO courses on production of documentary evidence of having passed the qualifying examination with required percentage. The petitioner having not satisfied the required qualification of securing 50% marks in PCB in +2 Science, she has not satisfied the requirement of eligibility criteria. As per Clause-9, rounding up of mark to the nearest whole number is only meant for filling up of the application form which has no nexus with the eligibility criteria of the candidate. Therefore, the authorities are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the aforesaid course. To substantiate his argument, reliance has been placed on the judgments in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 : 2011 (2) OLR (SC) 585 , and Kabita Dhal v. State of Orissa, 2014 (II) OLR 290.