^601- IN THE HISB COORT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPOR (C.6.) W.P. No.*2.^?3, ^2003 PETITIONER ,.^^' .•'' .••' Ku. An~]um ^ Aged about 19 years D/o Shri Nizamuddin R/o QR. No. 3-C, ^s.-^-. ^'-••^aS.^ Street No. 30, Sector-7, Bhilainaga.r, '^'••"•'s.'^-,..-*'^ ^ y Tahsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Pu-blic Health Medical Education & Family Pianning D.K.S. Bhawaa, Mantralaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) •iL.^ 2^-<3uru Ghasidas University Constituted under the M.P./C.G. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973) Through the Vice Chancellor Post- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical ScienQ.e.s Through its g^n. Bilaspur (Chha.K.t'.i.sgarh) i'i: PETITION UNDER Me'd-i.csl Council of India Aiwan-E-Galib Marg Kotla Road, New Delhi 110002. ARTICLE THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF CERTXORARI, MBNDAMUS SSD PROHXBITXON ETC. A-^^l HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 8ILASPUR fCHHATnS6AR Wnt Pet!t!ORi4o,340S^of 2003 Ku. Anjum Versas State of Chhattisgarh and others POSTFOR OROER ON 2 ^ ' FEBRUARY. 2004 Sd/- t-C.BHAOOO Judge %?»^02.2004 HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTES6ARHl Writ PstitioR No. 3498 of 2Q03 Ku. Anjum Versus Stote of Chhattisgarh and othsrs Present: - Shri .Ana"d Kuma" Tiwari, Advocate fo." the petitionsr. Shri Ranbir Singh, ©ovt.Advocate for the State/respondent No.l. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Advocate for r-espondents 2 and 3. ORDER (Passed on ^o^C--- February, 2004) As per L.C. Bhadoo J. / The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of th® Consti-tution of India whereby she has challenged •rtie vu!idity, propriety, legalit" and correctness &f the action of responden+s 1 to 3 in not admitting her in the first year of the MBBS course. 2. Brief facts givinq rise To This petition are ThoT The petiTioner appeared iri the Pre Medica! Test he!d on 5/6 June 2003. The petitioner secursd 127* rank in +he merit list. The petitioner belongs to unreserved categor^. The mark sheet of the petitioner is Annexure-P/2. Respondent No.2 caiied the successfuF candidsstes fo" counse!ing on 24th and 25 September 2003. Aoart from other seats some payment seats were reserved for each category of the condidates. Fifteen seats for unreserved open categor/ and 8 seats for unreserued wome-n category were also re-seryed. The petitioner was a!so invited for the counseling on 24 September 2003 at 9 am in the Chhattisgarh Instituts of Msdical Scisncss, Bilssspur aa",d it was made c!ear that the petitioner is required to stay for two days. The said counseling lefter was sent to the petitioner- on 23 September 2003 under S.No.134. 3. The petitioner appeared in the counseling. However, her counselina eouid not take pb.ee on 24 September 2003 and her counseling could take plac^ on 25 .September 2003. A+ the time of the counseling the petitione-r was informed that she has been selected for the pdyment seats, therefore, she is requirsd +o deposit Rs.2,50,000/- iir.mediatsiy. The father of the petitioner asked for the time but the petitioner was not able to deposit the fees up to 6 pm, therefore, she was not gi'yen udmission. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the rules regardjng the counseling ar-e ambiguous and unciear. TTiere was no communication by r-espondents to the pe+itione-r in clarity and certainty, which was obyiously not possible eithe-r to be so communicated to the petitioner due to not knowing the outcome of the counsslirsg that the petitioner or any othsr ccaididete for that purpcss would be required to carry demoaid draft of Rs.2,50,000/-. TTie petitioner was aiways prepared to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the Registrar of the respor'de.nt Un'yersity. When the sdmission in pesrticuhr cate9ory was to be made on probabilities, it was always reasonabie to prescribe some respectdble tiwe !jmit for the candidates like the petitioner to deiDosit the huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and some reasonable time ought to have been ailowed to the petitioner to deposit the amount. 5. The petitioner immediately through her father offered Rs.50,000/- to be aeposited as a guarantee to ensure the ^eat for her and informed the respondents in particular thot her brother hos been +e!ephQnica!ly instructsd to carry the remaining amount and has started from Bhilai to Bilaspur. As soon i»s he wi!! reach, the remaining amount would be deposited. But the respondents refused to listen the request of the father of the petitioner inciuding the petitioner and they informed that the admission has been cancelted. The petitionsr and he" father Isarnt that sti!! 17 seats hod fa!!sn vacant for which the counselina would be scheduled to be done on 28 and ith 29 September 2003. The petitioner once again reached with her father at the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences and made repeated and fervent request.s that she being a meritorious student on compamtive basi.s shouid be called for counseiing, whereos respondents were bent upon adntittirig stjdents having fesss." marks thai the pstitionsr which was a palpable illegality. Therefore, the petitioner has praiyed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the dscision of respondents not to permit ths petitioner to be admitted and also for issuance of a writ of mandixmus for direcTjng The respondents To consider the case of The peTitioner for admission jn the first year •MBBS Cou.-se caid the M.C.I. be dirsctsd to suitably make rules with regard to the counseling. 6. Return has been filed on bsh-alf of respondents 2 and 3 in which it hcs been mentioned that not only the petitioner but all other candidates who were invited through the letter of counseling for taking part in the counSeiing on 24-9-2003 and 25-9-2003 fully knew thst they may get a chance of ad.Ttissjo" either against free seat or againsf The payment seat and, therefore, in such an eventuality, they have to conie prspared with payment of fee in either of the co.se. It was cleaarly stoted in the letter of counseling also ajid as a matter of fact, on 24-9-2003, the candidates who appeared pursuont to the lefter of counseling wsre first registered and a copy of set of ru'es of admission was handed over to them and they were clearly told that in the event if they are seiected for admission, they wiil ha'v'e to immediateiy deposit the f®e pre-swibed. None of the candidate-s including the petitioner had any doubt that in the event of the candidate gett-ing a chcmce of admission against free seat, he/she wiil havs to imn'.sdiate!'/ deposit Rs.29,500/- and in ths eventualit/ of gett'ing a chance against the payment seat, he/she will have to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-. On 24-9-2003, during fne course of coun^iing all tiie free ss&ts in the Qener'a! caiteoQrv wsre fiiisd u& CEnd irl "ttie evenJMQ it wcis disployed in The office. All The candjdates including the petitioner who had taken pcrt in the counseiing cams to know about the position of the seats and it became yery clear in the evening of 24-9-2003 that on 25-9-2003 1s^1 counseling had to take place for payment seats only, even then the petitioner did not make any urrungement. 7. Havinq come to know that she could not succeed to get admission against free seat on 24-9-2003, as ail the free seats have been fiiled up, the pe-titioner was fully aware of the re-quirement of depo-sit of fee, should have made all the arrongements for deposit of fee in case she is offered admission against paymsnt seat during the courss bf counss!in9 on 25-9-2003. It is not known on what basis a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- was got prepared because it is to be either a draft of Rs.29,500/- or droft of Rs.2,50,000/-. A!! other candidates who hdd appeared for counseling on 25-9-2003 seeking a chance of admission against payment seat, upon being offered the admission, deposited fee of Rs.2,50,000/- as per ths requirsment of ru!es cnd the ietter of counseling. There were in all 24 admissions made against payment seat in general ca+egory and all -Hiose candidates deposited the fee then and ttiere. It would be clesr that al! the candidates had full knowledge thct in the eyent of gerring a chance of admission against payment seat they have To deposit ^' fee otherwise oandidate next to them wou!d be offered the admission. Thus, the petitioner has foiled to comply with the requirement in the matter of admission and, therefore, there is no iliegaiity or arbitrariness on the part of the answering respondents. 8. The petitioner seeks consideration of her case on compassionate 9round ond in isolation ignoring that rulss are -framed and conditions are imposed which apply generally to alt the candidates. As far as the petitioners ciaim for udfflission against general categor/ seat conyerted from Freedom Fighter quota seat for which counseling was . held on 28-9-2003 and 29-9-2003 is concerned, it is submitted that the aforesaid admission was chal!enged by filing a writ petition rsgistered as W.P. No.3243/2003 befors this Court ond admission granted in this case to a generai category candidate has been set-aside as per the or-der of this Court dated 21-11-2003. ^ I-.-. 9. All the averments made by the petitioner to say that her father was not knowing that tiiey hwe to br'ing Rs.2,50,000/- are false und un ufter thought. The answe-ring re-spondents specifically deny this fact as the petitioner <md her father were ciearly had fuii knowiedge that they have to bring Rs.2,50,000/- in the evsnt of getting a chance of sdmission Qgdnst the payment seat. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 10. I have heard Shri Anand Kuma" Tiwor'!, !sa"nsd ccunssl for the petitioner, 5hri Ranbir 5ingh, 6ovt. Advocate for the 5tate and 5hri Manindra Shrivastava, coun^! for' respondents 2 und 3. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not specificuily informed that in whicii category her udmission is being considered and the.re was no men+ion in this regard in the call letter. The pe+itloner was not aware that her case would be considered against the free seat or the payment sect. Therefore, in the circumstances, in the !cst ir.on'.ent the petitioner was informed that she/has been admitted under the payment seat quota. She shouid have been given proper opportunity for depositing the fees. Moreoyer, the rules issued for the adm'ssion are also ambiguous and the father of the petitioner iinmediaTely informed the Dean of respondenT No.3 Instituts that his son has alrecdy started from Durg and on his arrival he would deposit the fees. But the request of the fother of the petitioner was turned down which was arbitrary and iiiegai. Therefore, the action of rsspondsnts m not giving admission to ths petitionsr was who!ly ar-bitrary cnd iiiegal and against the principle of natural justice, therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and giv'e her admission, as the petitioner is me-ri+orious student. 12. On the other hsnd, Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, counsel for respondents 2 ond 3 argued that it VMS specifically mentioned in the call lett-er for counseiing that in case of free seat the couididate is required to deposit fts.29,50Q/- ond ir. case of payment ssct the candida-t®is "squired to deposit Rs.2.50.000/- and such ietter was sent to all the candidates in advonce. As it was not possible to ascertain in advtxnce that which condidote is going to get the free seat and the payment seat, therefore, •rtie cornect position was informed to o.11 the candidates. Rules were shown to all the candidates at the time of registration, therefore, the petitioner ought to have prepared with a fee for- the paynsent ssat. Moreovs", vshen on 24 Septembs" 2003 the candidates against the free seat were interviewed and in the evening it was pubiished tnat aii the free seats are filled up, this was a sufficient indication and ri.otice to a!! the remaining candidates, which were to be interviewed on 25 September 2003 That their cose would be considered against the payment seot. Therefors, on • 25 September 2003 itss!f ths petitionsr ought to have prepared herself for depositing the fees for the payment aeat. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Having heard ttie iearned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, if we iook into •the rules for admiasion for MBB5 Course issued by &j.-u fihasidas Uniyersity, Bilaspur for the session 2003-2004, the rule-7 aT page 19B of The paper book prescribes that at the time of counseling The college allocated ond the seat allocated will not be changed in any circumstonce ond at the time of counseling the condidate is required to deposit fuli fees immediately for taking admission otherwise the chance of 1+ie candida+s wi!! be considered finishset. Sw.ilarly, if we look into Annexure- P/4, a call letter which was sent to the petitioner, in the second page, in co!umn 12.1 the particulars of the fees have beeri given that against free seat the <5andida+e wil! be required to deposit Rs.29,500/- and against the poyment seat the candidate wiii be required to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-. Ciausel2.2 prescribss that at the time of counseling for admission, ths candidate will be required to deposit full fees through a bank draft in the name of ttie Kul Sachiv, Suru Ghasidas University, Biloispur immediateiy. No additiona! time wil! be allowed for depositin9 the fees. Therefore, eyen at the time of appearing in The examination the rules for admission were known to the petitioner and thersaftsr vide Annexurs-P/4 call ietter i-!- 'n'as specifically made ciear under Clause 12.1 that the candidate will be required to deposit ''"» Rs.29,500/- in case of free seat and Rs.2,50,000/- in case of payment seat. It was specificaiiy mentioned in Ciause 12.2 of this cal! leUer •ri'iat t'rie candidate will be. reqyire-d to deposit the fees immediate-ly and no further time wiii be aiiowed. Tnerefore, the petitioner was required to remain ready with the fess to be dsposited. 14. As far as the arguments of the learned counsei for the petitioner is concsrned that the petitioner vsas not mformed speci'fically that her cass will be considered against the payment seat, therefore, she should come prepared witii tiie fees. As the arguments of the iearned counsel for respondents -riiut in adyancs looking to the yarious possibilities and chances it was not possible for them to pin point that which candidate wiii be considered against the paymsnt seat and which candidate wi!! be considered agdinst the free seat. A genera\ letter was sent to oll the candidates explaining them the required fees to be deposited in case of free seat and in case of payment seat and this was sufficient, vaiid cnd p-oper notice to the petitioner. She ou9ht to hsye y • come prepared for both The cases. Moreover, os has been mentioned by respondents in their return that the candidates for free seats wer« intervtewed on 24 September 2003 ond tfie free seats were fill on 24 September 2003 itself and the notice was published to that effect in the sysiins. T1fts Deti+!0!fter was interviewed on 25 SeDtsmbsr* 2Q03. This wcs further notice to the petitioner in advance in the evening of 24 September 2003 that her case cannot be considered against -ttie free seat as ull the se-a+s were filled, therefore, the petitioner ought to have remain prepnred in advdnce on 25 September 2003 with fees of Rs.2,50,000/- for payment seat and for this lapse the petitionsr or he" fathe" cannot blame the respondents. - 15. Morsovsr, al! other 24 condidates who "eceived the simila" letters deposited their fees against the payment seats which itself shows that other candidates wer-e awar-e about the fact that the candidates who are to be interviewed o" 25 September 2003 are required to be prepared fo.r the /^^-. . '. payment. ag^. As has been mentioned in the return of respondents and the perusai of Annexure-R/2-1 shows that the petitioner failed to deposit the r-equired fee till 6 pm, therefore, bean E5r. A.K. Sarart9 he!d that the petitioner is not entitled for admission on account of her failure to depo.sit The required fee till 6 pm oaid she was declared ineligibie for admission. Tiii 6 pw thsy •A'aited for the petitione" to dsposit the fse and as the i.itsrview was conducted from 9 am to 2 pm, there vws sufficient time for the petitioner to arrange for the fees in five hours. She ought to have arranged the fees. A^ore particularly it wcis made clear in the rule-7 of the admission and also in the call letter that no additionai Time will be aliowed and the candidate will be required to deposit the fee immsdicitsly. 16. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the r-espondents had acted as per the rules ond as per noYice to the pstitionsr, therefore, they have not committed any impropriety and illegality in refusina •me admission to the petitioner. Tne petition is devoid of any merit and -me sa.me 'is hsble to be dssmissed ond it is dismissed. / 17. Cost is made easy. Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge ?y -s.s<--c.;w-r iarvi