SONIA KAYASTHA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking relief for quashing the proceedings dated 26.5. 1998 and 3.6.1998 filed as Annexures PD and PE, respectively, and to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to complete the Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Medical Surgery degree course (for short 'BAMS') to which the Petitioner claims to have started attending w.e.f. 20.5.1998. There is no serious controversy about certain vital and relevant facts on which the several legal issues raised are required to be decided. The State Government has issued the combind prospectus for the degree courses relating to MBBS/BDS and BAMS for the session 1997-98 and while providing for distribution of seats for admission, reserved one seat in the Rajiv Gandhi Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola, District Kangra for the wards of freedom fighters stipulating further that the seat so reserved for the ward of freedom fighter in BAMS course if remains unfilled, will go to the children-son-daughter of Ex-servicemen. The Petitioner claims that she was eligible and qualified to sit in the combind entrance test held by the 3rd Respondent and she also wrote the examination held on 29.6.1997. The result in respect of the same appears to have been declared on 22.7.1997 and the merit list was also said to have been displayed on 5.8.1997. It is also admitted that a note appended in the prospectus also stipulated that in case the seat for BAMS course will remain vacant after 15th November, 1997, the seat shall be filled through advertisement on the basis of CET merit-cum-first-cum-first basis by 30th November, 1997 by the College authority. Accordingly, on 1.5.1998, an advertisement under the heading "Admission notice" appears to have been given in the Punjab Kesari and on 15.5.1998 the candidates desirous for the course of BAMS-1 were directed to make themselves available before the admission Committee before 1.00 PM and the Petitioner presented herself accordingly, with the required documents/certificates including the CPET result card. It appears that the Petitioner was directed to deposit the tuition fee/admission fee etc. on 15.5.1998 itself and she had undergone the required medical examination. Pursuant to the said admission, the Petitioner claims to have got admission in the hostel also and for that purpose deposited the dues on 21.5.1998. On the basis of the above-narrated facts and events, the Petitioner claims that she has been wilfully and lawfully admitted to the course in question and, therefore, she was legitimately expecting her to be allowed to complete her BAMS course.

(2.) While matter stood thus, the father of the Petitioner received a telegram from the principal of the college calling upon him to report to the office on or before 30.5.1998 and when he met the Principal of the College, the father was apprised by the Principal that admission to her daughter has been wrongly granted and the expressed regret for the same. Inspite of the father trying to impress upon the Principal that his daughter has not suppressed any material from the college authority and she has been admitted properly and directed to deposit the tuition fee and hostel fee, which she also did, and the resultant damage that may be caused if she is sent out, the Petitioner was served with the proceedings dated 3.6.1998 informing her that since she was given admission to the course in question provisionally subject to its approval from the University and the University to which the admission matter has been referred to, intimated that the admission of the Petitioner on provisional basis against the sea-reserved for the ward of freedom fighter's category does not fall in the purview of the provisions laid down in the prospectus at page 6 Clause (d) and, therefore, her candidature could not have been considered for admission to the 1st year BAMS course for the year 1997-98. The communication also said that in view of the interactions given by the University, as above, the provisional admission to BAMS course granted to the Petitioner is cancelled. Aggrieved, the writ Petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the relief, as noticed supra.

(3.) While ordering notice to the Respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted, a direction has been issued by this Court, though no stay as such was granted to the Respondents, not to allot the seat to' any other candidate in the meantime. In the meantime, Ms. Kanchan daughter of Shri K.S. Verma, who has been selected for admission as a ward of Ex-servicemen, she having secured 203 marks in CPMT test-1997-98 and was asked to report for admission' pursuant to the representation made on her behalf on 23.5.1998, moved an application in this Court to get her impleaded as party-Respondent and also sought for vacating the interim order. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filled their reply. The 3rd Respondent-University also filed separate reply. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder. The sum and substance of the objections taken by the Respondents are that the writ Petitioner having secured only 135 marks in the common entrance test, she ought to have known that as per the criteria for eligiblity stipulated in the prospectus in IV Clause (d) at page 6, she was not eligible for admission, having not secured 50% of the marks, being also a candidate belonging to the open category and not to SC/ST category, she could not apply for the course consequently, she was not qualified and was actually ineligible for admission to the course. It was further stated for the Respondents that since the seats were proposed to be filled up as per the advice from the University, to whom the College stands affiliated, the admissions were thus made provisional by the Admission Committee and the matter was duly brought to the notice of the University for its approval and inasmuch as a serious infirmity in the admission accorded has been pointed out by the University, which infirmity is beyond controversy and dispute no exception could be taken to the action of the Respondents in rectifying the serious error by cancelling the provisional admission granted to the course for the Petitioner. The Respondents also claimed that such a rectification even at the thershold when it came to light was permissible and the same cannot be challenged. As for the alleged denial of opportunity before cancellation and denial of principles of natural justice, the Respondents claimed that the required opportunity has been given by inviting the father of the Petitioner and explaining to him the details and the opportunity so accorded sufficiently satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice to be observed, in this case. The candidate who got selected in the vacancy which arose on account of the cancellation of the admission accorded to the writ Petitioner also claimed in the affidavit filed by her that the writ Petitioner having secured only 135 marks out of 300 was wholly ineligible to be considered even for admission and she having secured 203 marks out of 300 and also being a ward of the ex-servicemen who in case of there being no ward of freedom-fighter is entitled to be admitted and has been rightly selected for admission should be allowed to join the course and consequently there are no merits whatsoever in the claim of the Petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We find from the materials placed before us that the proposed party appears to have been made a representation in this regard bringing all the disparities and infirmities in filling up of the seats through her father by a representation dated 23.5.1998 to the College itself.