SANJIB DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to Koibarta community which is a Scheduled Caste community in the State of Assam. He took the common entrance examination for admission into the MBBS/BDS Course for the session 1999-2000 and was selected for admission to the BDS course and thereafter admitted to BDS course in the Regional Dental College Guwahati. While pursuing the said BDS course, he took the common entrance examination for admission into the MBBS/ BDS course for the session 2000-2001 and secured a total of 63 marks in Physics, Chemistry & Biology. He was called for an interviiew by the Selection Board by an Educational notice published on 17.12.2000 in the newspapers. The petitioner appeared in the said interview, but was not granted admission in the seats reserved for scheduled caste iin the MBBS course. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this court for direction on the respondents to grant him admission into MBBS course.

(2.) Mr. KN Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the merit list of scheduled caste candidates published in the Educational Notice dated 17.12.2000, the petitioner has been shown in the 16th position with 63 marks whereas respondents-5, 6, and 7 have been shown in the 17th, 18th and 19th position with 63, 62 and 62 marks respectively. He further submitted that whereas the petitioner has not been given admission, the said respondents- 5,6 and 7 have been given admission into the MBBS course. He referred to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, Director of Medical Education, Assam, and the Member of the Selection Board to show that the only reason as to why the petitioner has not been granted admission into MBBS course was that he had signed a Bond prescribed in Schedule-II of the Mledical Col leges of Assam and regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under-graduate Students) Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules, 1996") to the effect that he would diligently prosecute and complete the BDS course in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Mr. Choudhury argued that if the petitioner was entitled to admission into the MBBS course on the basis of his merit, denial off such admission on the ground that he has signed such Bond to prosecute and complete the BDS course will violate his right under Article 14 of the Constitution. He further contended that a reading of rule 10 of the Rules. 1966 would show that a candidate selected is only to bind himself to serve under the Government of Assam for a period of five years and that he was not required to bind himself to pursue the BDS course. According to Mr. Choudhury, therefore, the contention of the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner has executed a bond tihat he would pursue the BDS course is not legally tenable. Mr. Choudhury also submitted that there are many cases in which students pursuing BDS course have been admitted to MBBS course on being selected for the MBBS course in the middle of the BDS course, and no action has been taken by the authorities against such students to enforce the Bond executed by them. He argued that the authorities cannot act differently in the case of the petitioner and enforce the Bond executed by him or deny admission to him into the MBBS course on the ground that in the Bond he has undertaken to pursue the BDS course. Mr. D. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, on the other, relied on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Director of Medical Education and in particular paragraph-5 thereof, and submitted that the action of the selection board in not granting admission to the petitioner into the MBBS course was justified and was not arbitrary, and not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. He further argued that the petitioner should have disclosed in his application that he was pursuing the BDS course, but the appropriate column was left blank so as to give an impression that he was not pursuing such BDS course when he applied for the common entrance examination.

(3.) The argument that the petitioner should have disclosed in his application for the common entrance examination that he was pursuing BDS course would have been relevant if the petitioner had in fact been given admission into the MBBS course by the authorities on being misled by the appropriate column in the application form being left blank by the petitioner. In the present case, even though the petitioner does not seem to have filled up the appropriate column as to whether or not he was pursuing the BDS course by such omission of the petitioner, the authorities have not been misled to give admission to the petitioner into the MBBS course. At the time of interview, the authorities have come to learn that the petitioner was in fact pursuing the BDS course having been admitted to such BDS course in the Regional Dental College for the academic session 1999-2000. Thus before any final decision was taken by the authorities as to whether or not admission should be granted to the petitioner into the MBBS course, the authorities had come to learn from the petitioner or from the documents furnished by him at the interview that he was pursuing BDS course. In my considered opinion, therefore, the omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose in his application for the common entrance examination that he was pursuing BDS course cannot be a ground to deny admission to him into the MBBS course if he was, otherwise entitled to such admission on the basis of the Rules 1996.