SABBIR ALAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the intervention of this Court for directing the respondent authorities to admit him against one of the vacant seats of the first year course of BAMS for the session 2013-14 in the Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati. The facts, which are material for disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner belongs to an unreserved (general) category and, having obtained more than 82% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) in the All India' Senior School Certificate Examination, 2012, applied for admission to BAMS course for the session 2013-14 at the Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati. He was invited for counseling for the course and did appear in the counseling. However, contrary to his expectation, he was not offered the seat which he claims to be entitled to considering his performance and the marks obtained by him in the examination. He sought for and obtained the requisite information through the letter dated 7.1.14 from the State Public information Officer of the College (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). This letter reveals that the name of the petitioner found a place in the 4th position of the candidates in that waiting list, that the candidates in Serial No. 1 and 2 in the waiting list, who were shown to have scored 85% and 84.66% respectively, were subsequently admitted to the course and that the candidate in Serial 3 and the petitioner, who are shown to have scored 84.66 and 84.66 respectively in Physics, Chemistry and Biology were remarked as not admitted. The information further reveals that there are 2 more vacant seats available for the course. It is contended by the petitioner that he, whose name finds a place at Serial No. 2 (after the candidates in the first and second position were admitted to the course) in the waiting has the legitimate right to be admitted to the course against one of the vacant seats. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities in not admitting him to the course have acted illegally and arbitrarily. This is how he filed this writ petition.

(2.) Though no affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the respondents, they argued their case through Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Additional Advocate General, whose submission is simple. According to him, the academic session for the year 2013-14 has already started on 1.12.2013 and the petitioner has missed the bus and cannot be accommodated at this belated stage. Drawing my attention to the instructions contained in the letter dated 25.10.2013 issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare addressed to all concerned colleges, universities and State Governments, the learned AAG submits that when the cutoff date for admission to this course for the academic session of 2013-14 was already extended to 30.11.2013 as a one time measure, the respondents cannot possibly allow mid-session admission to the petitioner: to do so would be tantamount to violation of the instructions of the competent authority and the decision of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, 2002 7 SCC 258. Contending that the writ petition is bereft of merit, the learned AAG submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The submission of Mr. A.M. Buzabaruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner is simple. He contends that the respondent authorities do not dispute that there are two vacancies to accommodate the petitioner; that the petitioner is in the 4th position of waiting list; that no fault is attributable to the petitioner in respect of the admission and that the respondent authorities did not have any reason to deny admission to the petitioner. The learned counsel refutes the contention of the learned AAG that it is now too late in the day to allow mid-session admission inasmuch such mid-session would entail extra-classes/tutorial and would even be harmful to the physical and mental health of the petitioner for undertaking enormous extra labour to make up the loss of time and submits that admission to the academic session which only started in the month of December, 2013 cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to be mid-session admission. On the contrary, he maintains, denying admission to the petitioner on such flimsy ground will rather have disastrous consequence for his future career, and the respondents are discouraging instead of encouraging meritorious students by taking such dubious stance. He relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Asha v. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, 2012 7 SCC 389and Mridul Dhar & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors., 2005 2 SCC 65, to fortify his contentions.