¥ril -¥S.ate Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of lot action (if any) Order lQrdeJ _ taken on Order 0 1I - .114.9.o6II In terms of our Order dated August 31, 2006 we proceed to dispose of this Writ Petition.[2]ThePetitionerhascomeupwitha prayer for 1III Issuing a writ in nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction to the Respondents to allow her to attend counselling and get her admitted in the MBBS Programme, 2006.[3]Hercaseisasfollows:-[3.1]ThePetitionerwasbornon 3.5.1987.[3.2]SheresidesinaremoteareaofDistrict Imphal where there is no Internet facility.[3.3]Pursuanltoanotification made for selection of M.B.B.S. Course in the Sikkim Manipal lnstitutc. of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to SMIMS) she applied for the Combined Entrance Test Examination complying with the formalities along with her Telephone Number for future communication.[3.4]Througha call letter dated August 14, 2006, . which was dispatched through Speed Post on August 18, 2006 (its copy appended as Annexiire. Office Note` Order with Signature action (if any) taken on` Order` Annexure A/4), was receiv;:g byJher on August 25, 2006. According to the CallLetter she was asked to ' appear in person on August 23, 2006 by 10.00 AM and not later than 12.00 Noon of that day at SMIMS Campus, Gangtok for counselling and admission under North-East Category. [3.5] Her father contacted Respondent No. 3 but was informed that all the seats of M.B.B.S. programme have been rilled up,;ho also made a representation dated August 26, 2006 through Post to Respondent No. 3 (as contained in Annexure A/5), but without any positive response. [3.6] The Speed Post Envelope containing the Call Letter took 8 days to reach her. Naturally, therefore, she could not attend her counseling for which she can not be faulted.. This has put her academic career in serious jeopardy. [4] It is also learnt that some additional seats for MBBS course are going to be allotted at SMIMS. [5] In their Counter Afridavit, which has been sworn by the Registrar of the University, it has been stated inter alia, to this effect: - . Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order The Petitioner could not qualify for the first counselling which was held on August 11, 2006, but there being possibility of her being admitted she was called for the second counselling to be held on August 23, 2006. The Prospectus clearly spelt out that the candidates would be informed by post, and in case the call letter is not received in time due to postal delay for which the College or the University shall not be responsible. They are advised to see the Web Site of the University. The call letter in question was handed over to the post man since August 15 and 16, 2006 were holidays for its dispatch on August 17, 2006. The delay in re6eipt of the call letter was due to postal delay. Out of 22 candidates for the second counseling, 8 were from the State of Manipur, out of which exc`ept the Petitioner, all appeared, who were also admitted, even though they were below the Petitioner. The University could not have prolonged the admission at its sweet will as September 30, 2006 was rixed by the Apex Court as deadline. Oe`dr Order with Signature Office.Note as to _ action_ (iLeDy). taken on Order A seat in the North-Easter` Category has fallen vacant as one Miss Karnalik€ !ingh, who was admitted in that category on AugrFi*3, 2006, took admission in the Sikkim Category by surrendering the .seat of North-Eastern Category. [6] The petitioner's assertion in her Rejoinder that she resides in a very remote area al the District of lmphal, which is not having facility or Internet has not been denied. Her claim set forth in the Rejoinder that she can be admitted in the existing lone vacancy has also not been denied. [7] Heard Mr. Y.N. Singh,learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents. [8] Undisputedly a vacancy exists in the North- Bastern Category. . Mr. Upadhyaya, however, states that the Respondents will follow the direction of this Court, if made, as some others may file another Writ Petition. [9] The only question which requires adjudication by this Court considering the fundamental right or the Petitioner of having educat.ion implicit in Article ` SerialNo.of . ` '1 . Datelof -.Order withs,gnature Office Note as toaction(ifany) Order Order- . takeri `on Order I I II1IIIIIII ~ _---, 21 of t.he Constitution of India for the fault of the Respondents she should be allowed to suffer?[10]TheApexCourtoftheCountryhas already hal¢ared that the right to education is a fundamental t4 right of every citizen, which implicit in the right to T,A- li:jf guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India_which is one of the most important right in the life of an individual. (See Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 1051; Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858; J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178)[11]ItisnotthecaseoftheRespondentsthat the applicants were also asked to provide their E-mail Address. Th.e Petitioner has disclosed her Telephone Number on her application. Ours is a poor country and Internet facilities are only available to a handful. Admittedly the letter was dispatched on August 18, 2006, two days after its signing, which was received - two days after 23.8.2006, the date fixed for the personal appearance 9f the Petitioner for her counselling. The Peon/Postal Department was at best the agent of the Respondents and not of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was rieJverlnformed of thii5- rl -1i7=~lT7-~ f` +tin- n r,.-- ,,:,`,.. +I.A+ l.L^ ),/ `__~05rao+1ar a--oo_, ____~,_`_____ ._ ...__..^_ _---+ }`, Iii-_ i--