SCA/1037920/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10379 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= GORASIYA KARTIK BHIKHABHAI SINCE MINOR, THROUGH FATHER - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT,THROUGH SECRETARY - GOVT OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR BM MANGUKIYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SUNIT SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR DIPEN DESAI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,, MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 3, MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent(s) : 4, MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) : 5, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH Date : 11/09/2008 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH) The petitioner herein challenges the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 refusing to grant him admission to the MBBS Course in SCA/1037920/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT respondent No. 3 – College, which is a Medical College run by the Surat Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner has been residing within the local limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation. The petitioner passed his 10th Std. Examination i.e. Secondary School Certification examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board in March, 2006 after undergoing studies at Madhavbag School situate at Amroli, which is within the limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation. The petitioner thereafter studied in the HSC (Science) School run by PP Savani Chaitanya Vidya Sankul at village Abrama, Taluka Kamrej in Surat Disrict and passed the HSC Examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. As per the certificate at Annexure “E” to the petition, the said school is situate at Abrama, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat and is located with the Surat Urban Development Authority limits. The petitioner passed HSC Examination in Science with “B” group subjects. The petitioner secured 267 marks out of 300 marks in the “B” group subjects. Accordingly the petitioner applied for admission to respondent No. 3 – College. 3. As per the Admission Rules, out of total 100 seats in respondent No. 3 – College, 70 seats are to be filled in from local students. The petitioner accordingly applied for admission to respondent No. 3 – College in the quota meant for local students. 4. When the admission process started, the Admission Committee considered the petitioner as ineligible for admission to the quota for local students on the ground that the school from where the petitioner passed his 12th Std. Examination was not within the Surat Municipal Corporation limits. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid stand of the authorities before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9202 of 2008. The petitioner SCA/1037920/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT also challenged the definition of “local students” as contained in explanation to Rule 5A(b) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2007. The explanation read as under :- “Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, the term local students shall mean the students who have passed their S.S.C. Examination (Std. 10th) and qualifying Examination (Std. 12th) from any of the high schools situated within the Surat Municipal Corporation limits and includes a permanent resident of the Surat Municipal Corporation who acquired the above qualifications from any of the high schools situated within the Surat Municipal Corporation Area.” 5. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nilaybhai R. Thakore, (1999) 8 SCC 139, where a similar controversy was considered by the Apex Court regarding the definition of “local students” for the purpose of admission to the Municipal Medical College in Ahmedabad, this Court allowed the petition by judgment dated 7.8.2008 and directed the respondent authorities to interpret the explanation to clause (b) in Rule 5-A of the Admission Rules as under :- “'Local student' means a student who has passed SSC Examination (Std. 10th) and qualifying Examination (Std. 12th) fro any of the high schools or colleges situated within the Surat Municipal Corporation limits and includes a permanent resident student of the Surat Municipal Corporation who acquires the above qualifications from any of the high schools situated within the Surat Urban Development Authority Area.” 6. The petitioner accordingly went back to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with a request to consider the petitioner's case on the basis of the above judgment. Unfortunately for the petitioner, all the seats in respondent No. 3 – College were filled in. In this petition, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents denying admission to the petitioner in the First MBBS Course on the ground that no vacant seat is available and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent SCA/1037920/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT authorities to grant admission to the petitioner in the Fist MBBS Course in respondent No. 3 – College even if the respondent authorities are required to cancel the admission granted to respondent No. 4, who is the last meritorious student admitted after denying admission to the petitioner. 7. Mr BM Mangukia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 4, the petitioner ought not to have been denied admission to respondent No. 3 – College in the quota for local students on an erroneous interpretation of explanation to Clause (b) in Rule 5A of the Admission Rules. Mr Mangukia further submits that since the 30th September, 2008 is the time limit by which all admissions have to be completed, the petitioner is entitled to get admitted to a vacant seat by 30th September, 2008. In the alternative, it is submitted that in Dental Council of India vs. Pravina, 2005 (13) SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the Court should refrain from issuing direction for creation of additional or supernumerary seats, directed the concerned College to give admission in the next academic year to the student who was wrongly denied admission in the current academic year. 8. Mr Mitul K Shelat, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India has submitted that 30th September, 2008 is the deadline for completion of admissions to the First MBBS Course in all the Medical Colleges. Mr Shelat further submitted that the Medical Council of India will abide by the direction which may be issued by this Court in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dental Council of India vs. Pravina, 2005 (13) SCC 114. 9. Mr Dhaval Nanavati for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 – College will abide by the orders of the Court. SCA/1037920/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT Mr Prashant Desai for respondent No. 4 submits that admission granted to respondent No. 4 may not be disturbed at this stage, as all the seats in the Medical Colleges are filled in. 10. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Surat city and passed his 10th Std. Examination from a school situate within the Surat Municipal Corporation limits and the petitioner passed his 12th Std. Examination from a school situate within the SUDA limits. The petitioner is thus eligible for admission to respondent No. 3 – College in the quota for local students. However, the petitioner lost admission to respondent No. 3 – College for the current academic year 2008-09 only on account of the fact that the respondent authorities overlooked the decision of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nilaybhai R. Thakore, (1999) 8 SCC 139. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent authorities granted admissions to students less meritorious than the petitioner to the First MBBS course in respondent No. 3 – College in the category of local students. Respondent No. 4 is the last in the list of such less meritorious students and, therefore, the petitioner has pressed for admission to respondent No. 3 – College even by displacing respondent No. 4. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we are of the view that since respondent No. 4 was already admitted to respondent No. 3 – College more than a month back, it would not be just and proper to disturb the admission already granted to respondent No. 4. Had he not been admitted to respondent No. 3 – College at the relevant time, he might have secured admission to some other Medical College. At the same time, considering the fact that the petitioner is wrongly denied admission to respondent No. 3 – College in the quota of local students, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Dental Council of India vs. Pravina, 2005 (13) SCA/1037920/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT SCC 114, we direct respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to consider the petitioner's case for admission to respondent No. 3 – College in the category of local students in a seat which may fall vacant by 30th September, 2008 or if no such vacancy arises, to grant admission to the petitioner on one seat in the First MBBS course in respondent No. 3 – College in the academic year 2009-10. 12. We accordingly allow the petition in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ.] [M.S. SHAH, J.] sundar/-