IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11948 of 2011 1. Rakesh Kumar Nirala S/O-Late Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident Of Topkhana Bazar ,Near Kali Sthan ,P.S-Kotwali, P.O- Munger, Dist-Munger, Pin Code -811201,Presently Residing In P.G. Hostel No-2 Room No-3 ,P.M.C.H .Patna ,Pin Code -800004 2. Ritesh Kumar S/O-Ramjee Prasad Singh Resident Of Gandhi Nagar ,Ram Chandra Pur ,P.S-Biharsharif ,Post-Biharsharif ,Dist- Nalanda, Pin Code -803101---Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary Education Service Bihar, Patna 2. The Controller of Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna-14 3. The Controller Of Post Graduate Medical Admission Test (P.G.M.A.T) 2011, B.C.E.C.E Board, Patna----Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh & Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocates For the BCECE Board: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Krishna Kant Singh AC to GP-4 --------------------------- 2 14.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for parties. There are two petitioners before this Court who are seeking direction upon the respondents authority to permit them to take admission in P.G. Course for the sessions 1011-14. With regard to petitioner no.1 he wants admission in MS (ENT) in N.M.C. Patna and so far petitioner no.2 is concerned in D.O.M.S. (Diploma) course in D.M.C. Darbhanga. Both these petitioners had qualified in written examination which was conducted by the Controller of Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. On the basis of the declaration of the result and the merit position they had a right for admission in the courses they had opted or were allotted. It is also their case that last date for admission should be extended in favour of 2 these two petitioners in the circumstances that they were expecting to clear the last course of study and declaration of their result by either 8th or 10th July, 2011 by the two institutions, where they were carrying on their studies. Since the extended time demanded by them was not accepted by the respondents, situation has been created where they have lost out admission in P.G. Courses despite being successful candidates. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed is that there has not been any wrong doing on their part. Request for admission by these two petitioners, beyond the date already fixed by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Vivek Dudeja & Ors. vs. Union of India & others is uncalled for. The calendar for admission and counselling has been categorically indicated in the order of the Apex Court and every authority including the respondents of the State of Bihar are bound by such a direction of the Apex Court. They have indicated in the counter affidavit specially in paragraph-7 that counselling based on the declaration of the result was initially held for the period 15.4.2011 to 27.4.2011. Petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no.2 both decided to remain absent. In the second counselling which was conducted between 24.5.2011 to 27.5.2011 petitioner no.1 did not opt for any course or institution at his merit position and preferred to go for a no vacancy choice. Petitioner no. 2 did not turn up to exercise any option even in the second counselling. In terms of the direction of the Apex Court the vacancy 3 occurring on 25th May, 2011 which relates to this year had to be turned over to the State. Final counselling had to be completed before 30th June, 2011. The factual position which emerges from the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that they were still pursuing their earlier studies and did not/could not opt for counsellings when they were held since they had not cleared their courses of studies. In other words in anticipation of the declaration of the result they sat in the examination hoping that they will acquire eligibility by the time the counselling is held. The results obviously have been declared much after the last cut-off date of counselling. The last of submission of learned Senior counsel is that he is not to blame in declaration of the result. The obligation was upon the institutions where they were pursuing studies and it was incumbent upon them to ensure that the results were in place before the counselling ended. If there has been some delay the dead line of counselling ought to be extended by the Court to accommodate them. Submission made at the bar in favour of the petitioners may be tempting or attractive because it can be argued that two petitioners are being prejudiced because of the conduct not attributable to them. But the problem which comes in the way of the Court to give such a relief is that the dead line or the dates for counselling has been fixed universally across the country on the basis of the declaration of law by the Apex Court. If rigidity has been created by the said declaration of Hon`ble Supreme Court then it is 4 not possible for the High court to re-fix that date or dilute it by giving any direction to extend the date of counselling whatever be the circumstances. During the course of argument learned counsel representing the petitioners brought to my notice an order which had been passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 6781 of 2007 disposed of on 13.6.2007. In a similar circumstance a direction was given for taking admission of that petitioner. This order became a subject matter of appeal in LPA No. 771 of 2007, filed by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Board. The order of the learned Single Judge was stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.9.2007 and the matter came to be finally disposed off on 27.6.2011 as the petitioner of that case chose not to appear in the case. Based on the factual position which emerges from the record of the case of LPA there was an observation that if eligibility had not been acquired on the date when counselling had to take place and if there was a dead-line with regard to counselling, then there would be difficulty in extending the benefit to the concerned petitioner. Learned Senior counsel does not dispute this fact which has been noted above but by way of last ditch effort he tries to press in service the observation made by learned Single Judge in contempt application filed by the petitioner of that case, namely, Chandra Subhash which was registered as M.J.C. No. 1578 of 2007. Whatever be the observation of the learned Single Judge, while exercising his authority in contempt jurisdiction, this Court 5 cannot ignore the fact that the original order passed by him will have no application in the present case after the observation of the Division Bench. The fact is that the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification or eligibility when the counsellings were held and they chose not to participate in the first and second counselling. There is no way that they can beget the advantage of admission in the above circumstances. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)