RUMIKA YADAV Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One hundered and fifty seats for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses were notified by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') in the year 1992. Of these 115 seats were in Rohtak Medical College and 35 seats in Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha. Two seats in Rohtak Medical College and one seat in Maharaja Agarsen Institute were reserved for the children of the deceased/disabled officers (if there are no such case then children of ex-servicemen). The petitioner, whose father late Shri Rajinder Singh Yadav was Lieut. Colonel in the Army, applied for the reserved seat. Similarly, respondent No. 4 Miss Yang Chan Kishore and some other candidates applied against the three reserved seats. On the basis of the examination conducted by the respondent-University, a merit list was prepared wherein respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 3 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4. Both of them were interviewed. The petitioner submitted her Domicile Certificate on 29.7.1992, i.e. within the time limit fixed by the University but respondent No.4 submitted the same on 12.8.1992. Ultimately, respondent No.4 was admitted in the Medical College, Rohtak.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the admission of respondent No. 4 against the seats reserved for children of deceased/disabled officers on the ground that respondent No.4 was not a resident/domicile of Haryana as per the requirement of Circular letter No. 6229/84-6-GSI dated 10.9.1991 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana and, therefore, her admission is illegal and void and in her place, the petitioner has a right to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. In support of her claim that respondent No. 4 cannot be treated as a bonafide resident of Haryana, the petitioner has stated that the certificate submitted by respondent No. 4 was procured from City Magistrate, Gurgaon, by furnishing wrong informations to the said authority. Her allegation is that father of respondent No. 4, Shri Nand Kishore is permanently settled in Delhi after his retirement in June, 1991. He has a flat No. 569 at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and a telephone connection with telephone No. 634430. This flat is in the name of his wife Smt. Raj Kishore. It has also been alleged that Shri Nand Kishore got his pension credited in his account in Syndicate Bank, South Block, New Delhi, and he continued to receive his pension in the said account till May 30, 1992, but with a view to get a domicile certificate, he made an application dated 22.6.1992 to the Syndicate Bank to transfer his account with pension file to the State Bank of India, Gurgaon. This file was received by the State Bank of India, New Colony Branch, Gurgaon on 25.6.1992 and in the month of August, 1992, he received pension from Gurgaon. Further allegation of the petitioner is that in order to secure domicile certificate, respondent No. 4 gave her address as House No. 508/10, Krishna Colony, Gurgaon, although this house belongs to her father's brother- in-law, Shri Brij Mohan Bajaj. Earlier to this, respondent No. 4 had given her address of some other place at Patel Nagar, Gurgaon, for seeking admission in a College. The petitioner says that respondent No.4 cannot derive any benefit from a certificate secured by her father on the basis of patently wrong informations furnished to the concerned authority.

(3.) In its reply, the respondent-University pleaded that admission was granted to the respondent No.4 on the basis of the domicile certificate produced by her and that the University could not have gone into the authenticity of the domicile certificate submitted by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 has further pleaded that if any candidate secures admission by producing false affidavit/certificate his/her admission is liable to be quashed and if it is found that respondent No.4 secured admission by producing a fake certificate appropriate action will be taken by the University. In his separate reply respondent No. 2 has stated that domicile certificate was issued to respondent No. 4 after verification of the facts by Halqa Patwari and on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar. He has, however, admitted that no inquiry was made by his office after receipt of complaint from the mother of the petitioner. In their joint reply, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have stated that the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gurgaon, is a genuine document and none of the informations furnished by respondent No. 3 was false. Their case is that they are permanent residents of Haryana. These respondents have admitted that Flat No. C-569 in Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, belongs to the wife of respondent No. 3 and he has got a telephone connection at that house but it has been reiterated that for the last many years, he has been residing with his brother-in-law at Krishna Colony, Gurgaon and even the Sainik Board, Gurgaon, has also issued a certificate to that effect.