SHWETA BHATIA Vs. CHRISTIAN DENTAL COLLEGE, LUDHIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for admission to the B.D.S. Course in the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the course commencing from August, 1998. The written test for admission was conducted on 31.5.1998, and as per the Admission Calendar (which forms a part of the prospectus Annexure R.1/2 issued by the College) the applications in form 'E', that is the form to be filled in after the success in the written examination, were to be submitted by 8.6.1998. It was also provided that the provisional lists of the selected and wait-listed candidates would be put up on the Notice Board of the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana on 30.6.1998 and that the candidates who had been provisionally selected for interview, would be so informed by registered letter as they were required to report to the College for the checking up of their original certificates and submission of fees on 14.7.1998. It was also provided that in case no intimation of a candidate's result was received by him/her by 8.7.1998, such a candidate was required to contact the College to ascertain the correct position. It is the petitioner's case that despite the stipulation in the Admission Calendar, the result of the B.D.S. Entrance Test was not displayed on the Notice Board on 30.6.1998 and that as a matter of fact, intimation with regard to petitioner's success in the written test and her merit as a wait- listed candidate was received by her on 17.7.1998 through a registered letter dated 2.7.1998 i.e. after the date fixed for the interview that had already been held on 14.7.1998. The petitioner has further averred that though her result had not been declared by 14.7.1998, she had, nevertheless, attended the respondent-College at the date and time of the interview on 14.7.1998 and that she had projected her claim, though without success, whereas candidates lower to her in merit were allowed admission. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come to this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) On notice of motion issued to the respondents, a reply has been filed by the Principal of the Christian Dental College, Ludhiana. The broad averments made by the petitioner have been denied and it has been submitted that as per the Admission Calendar afore-referred, Annexure R-1/2, the result of the B.D.S. Entrance Test had been declared and put on the Notice Board of the College on 30.6.98 at three different places. It has also been pleaded that letters under registered cover had been prepared for despatch to the successful/wait-listed candidates including the petitioner on 3/4.7.1998 calling upon them to appear for the interview on 14.7.1998 but as all the letters could not be posted on those dates due to administrative reasons, some of the letters to some of other candidates had been despatched by courier as in the meanwhile, a postal strike had started throughout the country. It has further been highlighted that the interviews were held as scheduled on 14.7.1998 from 8.30 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. with respect to candidates on the merit list and it was only after 3 P.M. that the candidates on the waiting list were called for the counselling for the unfilled seats up to 5 P.M. It has also further been pleaded that the Principal of the Christian Dental College as also the Registrar were present in the office at the time of the admission which was attended by a large number of students and their parents and the name of each candidate including that of the petitioner was called out repeatedly to attend the interview but the petitioner did not do so as she was not present at that time, with the result her case was not considered for admission.

(3.) A replication was also filed by the petitioner and it has been averred that the call letter for the interview could not be delivered to her in time as there was a postal strike from 7.7.1998 to 16.7.1998. It has also been alleged that the respondent-College did not deliberately send the letter to the petitioner by courier as in the other cases with the deliberate intention of depriving her of a seat in the college. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was present in the College on 14.7.1998, but as she had not received a call letter for the interview, her name had not been called out at the time of the counselling. It has also been submitted that the vacancies in the B.D.S. Course were filled up even on 7.8.1998 as would be evident from Annexures P-6 and P-7 filed alongwith the replication, and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to a consideration against such a seat.