r';.:,-?®^-1;,"1;'®n^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WP f C ) No.^^../20l0 PETITIONER: Akanksha Adile Aged- 23 years, D/o Shri S.L. Adile C/113, Guru Ghasidas Colony New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Union of India Through Directorate General of Heatth Services, (Medical Examination Cell) Nirman Bhawan,New-Delhi-ll 3. Director of Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel, D.K.S Bhawan Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Principal Government, NMDC Medical Cottege Jagdalpur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCEOF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS :- y HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPim DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 8s Hon'ble GHULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ W.P.1Q No. S488/2010 Prya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatfegarh aad others ^ W.P.ICt No. 5489/2010 Akanksha Adile Vs. State of Chhattisgarh aud ofhers JUDGMENT/ORDER For consideration Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge HON'BLB SHRI JU8TICB G. MINHAJUDDIN -V o^d^JUL- -^ '( Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Postforcct /08/2011 Sd/- JUDGB o8 /08/2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BItASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hon'ble GHULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ PETITIONBR: RESPONDBNT8: W.P.tCl No. 5488/2010 Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chliattisearh aad others PBTITIONBR: RBSPONDBNTS: W.P.tCI No. 5489/2010 Akaaksha Adile Vs. Stete of Chliattisgarh aad ofhers WRIT PETITIONS imDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOISOFntDIA Appearaace: Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, Sr. Advocate wifh Mr. P.S. Koshi, Mr. Matiu Siddiqui & Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, counsel for fhe petitioners, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate Oeneral for the State/rcspondents l, 3 & 4. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, couasel for respondent No.2/Union of India. Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, couiisel for fhe inteivener. Pe»I.M. QUDDU8I, J^, JUDGMBNT/ ORDER (o<? .08.2011) 1. By these writ petitions filed uuder Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India, petitioners are chaUengtag the order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby their admissions to the M.B.B.S. Course have been caaceUed. The petitioners are also ebaUengiug the dfa'ections of the State issued in ^. Aiuiexure P-2 dated 10.09.2010 for lodging the First Infonuation Report. 2. Brief facts of the case accordiag to fhe petitioners are fb.at ttiey had appeared ia Pre-Medical Test conducted by titie State of Chhatdsgarh in fhe year 2006. Petitioner Akauksha Adile secured general Raak as 3893 and as she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, her raak in S.C. category was 396. Petitioner Priya Gupta secured general rank as 1614. The counselmg was held for Js^dalpur Medical CoUege on 22nd & 23rd August 2006 and 2 seats fi-om central quota were reverted back to Jagdalpur Medical CoUege vide Armexure P-4 dated 08.08.2006 aud fhe uames of the petitioners find place for ftteir adiuission. in J^dalpur Medical CoUege in the list {Annexure P-5) enclosed to fhe letter dated 08.08.2006. The contention ofthc petitioners is that siuce fheir adinissions were in accordaa.ee with the directions of the Goverrunent on fhe basis of reveraion of seats of central quota, their adiuissions were ia accordauce wifh. law aad since they have studied professional course upto Part-II, fheir admission cannot be questioned at ttus stage aad no FIR caa be lodged for inqiuiy of such adinission. In fhe light of fhese facts the petitioners pray for the following reUef[s) : i. To kindly quash the impugned canceUation of adiuission order dated 10.09.2010, which is aniiexed as Aiuiexure P-1. il. To kmdty quash fhe impugned direction given vide letter dated 10,09.2010, which is armexed as Annexure P/2. / ^L- iu. To kmdly inake aay other order fhat may be deemed fit and just iu the facts aad circumstances of ftie case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 3. The stand offhe State/respondents 1 & 3 is that C.G.P.M.T. for acadeniic year 2006-2007 was held ia which aspirants for adiaission in. niedical course appeared. There were 3 Medical CoUeges iu the State of Chliatdsgarh, they are, (l) Pt. J.L.N. Medical CoUege, Raipur, (2) Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (CIMS), BUaspur and (3) Govt. NMDC Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur. The d^tribution of scats te 100 each for Raipiu- and Bilaspur Medieal Colleges whereas 50 for Jagdalpur Medical CoUege. Out of total number of seats, 15% seats are given under fhe AU. India Quota and 3% seats are given under Ccntral Pool Quota, lueaaing thereby that out of 100 seats, 18 seats should go to the Central Govertuaent for aUotment by them. to the students of C,P.M.T. aad also for the students of Union Territory. Thus, so far as Raipur and BUaspur Medical Colleges are concemed, the State has to distribute 82 seats for each Medical CoUege and 41 seats for Jagdalpur Medical College. Petitioner Ku. Akanksha Adile is the daughter of fhe fhen Director, Medical Educatiou, Dr. S.L. Adile who by virtue of his position could be said to be fhe superior officer for conducting aad controUiug the pre-iaedical examiiiation aad post graduate medical admission. 4. It is the petitioners' staad fhat AU India Quota seats were reverted to the Director, Medical Education (for short DME) vide Amiexure P-4 dated 08.08.2006 whereby a categorical ~f- 4 '"fl' direction atleged to have been issued by the Assistant Director General, Directorate General of Health Services & Medical Examination Cell, New Delhl, stating that in case 15% ofAU India Quota reinams vacant aftei 23.8.2006, fhey niay be treated as surrendered to State Quota. The contention of the petitioners is that according to fhe final aUotm.eiit/re-aUotment list of MBBS/BDS seats under All India Quota (second rouad), 2006, two seats ia laerit No.2196 and 2203 were reverted back to Govt. NMDC Medical College, Jagdalpur in the naiae of Akanksha Adile aiid Priya Gupta and fheir aUotnient date appeared to be 08,08.2006. S. Learaed counsel for ttie State/respondents 1 & 3 have subinitted fhat if it was the true aod correct position, then there was no occasion for the Deaa, Govt. NMDC Medical CoUege, J^dalpur to seek direction fix>in D.M.E. on 30.09.2006 inore so when fhe couaseluig for Medrcal CoUege Jagdalpiu- was held on 23.08.2006 for allotmeut of those 2 seats. The said askauce by the Deaa Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur as aUeged by fhe petitioners was on 30.09,2006 axid directions were issued by fhe fhen D.M.E. on 30.09.2006 to the Dean directing him to uiforca aU the students on Telephone for couiiselm.g and in case none of the candidates appeared on uiformation then to hold counselmg for those stadents who happened to be present ia fhe CoUege. Siirprisiagly, the daughter of D.M.E. i.e., petitioner Akanksha Adile aad another caadidate Priya Gupta were present ia Jagdalpur Medical CoUege on that pardcular day without mfonnation to fheia on record aad (W 6. accordiugly fhey were admitted ia fhe course. This action on fhe part of entire inachirieiy appeared to be weU enveloped within dark clouds of doubt. The saM doubts were fiu-ther cleared by the Directorate General of Health Semces and Medical Examiuation CeU, New DeUu, vide Letter dated 28.10.2009 addressed to coiuplauiant Dr. Aiul Khakariya who is aa iatervener ia these writ petitions. This infonnatiou was supplied to Dr. Anil Khafchariya under fhe Right to Informatiou Act stating that no such aUotment of seats to Jagdalpur Medical CoUege was made by Letter dated 08/08/2006. Copy of fhe letter dated 28.10.2009 was ffled as AnTiexure R-l. Therefore, leamed counscl for respondents 1, 3 & 4 has furfher submitted that fhe letter dated 8.8.2006 aUottm.g two seats to Jagdalpur Medical CoUege iiader Central Pool Quota is sham. It was furfher stated fhat fh.e officials at fhe coiuuvance of aad in coUusion with the ttten Director, Medical Education namely Mr. S.L. AdUe got his daughter Akauksha Adile aad another petitioner Priya Gupta adiaitted in the Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur contraiy to fhe above distnbution scheine. In the Supplementaiy counter affidavit filed by Prof. Sanjay Sbrivastava, Assistant Director General (Medical Education), Dircctorate General of Healfh Services, Nirman Bhawan, New DeUu, on behalf of fh.e Central Govenunent, it has been specificaUy stated tbat the Directorate General of Health Services neifher made anv aUotruent of MBBS seats to the caadidates iu J^dalpur Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur under 15% AU India Quota for fhe year 2006 nor made any 6 (•?;''T-5 .1 'i^ ^y' reservation for aUotment of MBBS seats in Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur under 15% AU Iiidia Quota for fhe year 2006 aud also fhere was no 3% Central Pool Quota for Jagdalpur Medical CoUcge. 7. Earlier, a counter affidavit was ffled on behalf of Central Govemiiient by Professor Mangala Kohli, Director Geiieral (Medical Education), Directorate General of Healfh Services, Delhi, iu which also it has been specifically stated denymg the aUegations niade ia the writ petition fhat no aUotment of seats ia Govt. NMDC and Medical CoUege Jagdalpur under 15% AU India Quota for fhe year 2006 was made nor sent auy allotment letter to DME, Chhattisgarh as wcU as Jagdalpur Medical CoUege, Jagdalpur aad Rauk Nos. 2196 and 2203 were achieved by different candidates. In the couater afBdavit, it was also xuentioned fhat complamant namely Dr. Khakharia has been informed iu response to question No.ll raised by him that Rank No.2196 belongs to Ms. Dehna who has been allotted MBBS seat of Govt. Medical CoUege, Salem (TN-09) on 08.7.2006 and Rank No.2203 belongs to Mr. Saurabh Unyal who was marked absent on 08.07.2006 aud the Directorate has not made aay atlotments to Ku. Akaaksha and Ku. Priya uader 15% AU India Quota in. the year 2006. 8. It is not disputed fhat there were 3 medical coUeges in the State of CUiattisgarh; fhe Chliattisgarh Pre-Medical Test examiaation for fhe year 2006-2007 was conducted in the year 2006; results were declared before July, 2006 aad the first cozinseliag was held on 218t aad 22nd Juty, 2006 and cr .8- 9. the second counseluig was held on 23rd August, 2006, The luerit position of these two petitioners as per aanexure dated 30.09.2006 is as foUows; 1. Ku. Priya Gupta 2. Ku. Akanksha Adile MeritNo. UR 1614 MeritNo. SC - 396/3893 The last caadidate admitted ia Govt. Medical College Jagdalpur was Ms. Pooja Khetrapal, imder unreserved quota (female) whose aierit muuber was 188. Thercfore, no candMate ater the luerit No. 188 was admitted. As inentioned above, the luerit positiou of Petitioner Ku, Prya in uureserved femate quota was 1614. Therefore, fhe candidates who got raaks betweeu Merit Nos.189 and 1613 were not given opportunity to seek admission. Likewlse, the last candidate admitted under S.C. Category was Ku. Pratima Koshewara, whose inerit position was 48. The merit position of Ku. Akanksha Adjle as mentioned in. Annexurc P- 11 dated 30.09.2006 under S.C. categoiy was 396. Therefore, the caadidates whose ranks were iu between. Merit Nos. 49 and 395 were not given aay opportunity to get admission or to attend the iastitution. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State of Chliattisgarh/ respoudents 1 & 3 it has been stated fhat fhe iastaat case is a case which caa, beyond fhe reasonable doubts, be said to be a case of admission strictly on Iraud or fiaudulent basis. It has been furfher stated fhat such fiaud is not attributed as an outcome oflack ofkuowledge or as au outeoine of acting bona-fide wifhout noti.cc and the then D.M.E. had eveiy knowledge fhat the seats fi-om Uniou of India have not been reverted, despite that a document to fhat effect was prepared and was used for adinitting his own daughter Akaaksha AdUe and another candidate Prya Gupta kaowiag fully weU fhat fhe document is not genuine and ultimately they got admissions by appeariiig on the last date i.e., 30dl Sept. 2006 wifhout gettmg any notice. Iftwo seats were correctly reverted back to fh.e State vide letter dated 8.8.2006 th.cn there was no justification in conceaUng this fact in fhe counseluig held on 23.08.2006 and thia Court niay uot allow such iUegalily to cuhninate into a vaUd justification thereby aUowiag fiaud to be encouraged ia the fashion. 10. In view ofthe foregoing dfecussion, we are offtie opiruon fhat there is violation of Ardcle 14 of fhe Constitution of India as inore nieritorious caadidates were deprived of opportuiuly to get adniission. Unless proinpt iafonnation could issue in such circuiastances to the caadidates rueritorious than the petitioners, fhey could not have knowB. that auy of theni is a fortunate person to get the seat. In any case, the petitioners could have already been admitted in the course aad due to their candidatures to the admissions, perhaps, intentionatly the other candidates were aot itifonned. Otherwise, fhe whole intention to give adnussion to these petitioners ia such a way would have becouie futUe. This Court cannot encourage a wrong doiug by which fhere is gross violation of provisious of Ardcle 14 of the Coustitutiou depriviag the opportuiuties of eligible candidates who are laeritorious ia companson to fhe petitioners ia getting admission. We are ^: .^T>. ';"»l^"i i.'r /•' conscious that the petitioners, who were not entitled to contmue the studies but subject to result of the writ petition they are contmiung, would no niore be benefited aud alfhough fhey wiU suffer personal loss but fhere is no place of sentim.ents in fhe field of law. Thus we are of fhe opinion that fhe petitioners do not acquire any right under the uiubreUa ofinterim. order. 11. Learaed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliaace ia State of Maharashtta -vs- Miltnd and others, (2001) 1 8CC 4 aud submitted that at this stage, if any action is taken against the petitioners, it may tead to depriwiag fhe service ofdoctora to the Sociely on whoin huge public money has already been spent. But in case of Milind (supra) the person had becom.e a doctor 15 years back. Therefore, it was directed that no benefit beiag an ST caadidate would be given to hiin. But the facts of the iustaat case are quite different fix>ni that of Milmd's case (supra). The case in hand is regarding admission and wifhout foUowing the eligibility norms the petitioners got adinissions by fi-aud or undue influence and after fheir admissions, fhe dispute has ansen by fhe couiplamaat, but in fhe case of Milind. (supra), fhe dispute had come befoie fhe Hon'ble Supreine Court after 15 years and the person concemed had already passed fhe course aad had beconie a doctor, but in. that case fhe benefit of caste reservation was not given to him by Hon'ble fhe Supreiae Court Therefore, Milind's caae is distmguishable on facts offhese cases. 10 •'^ 12. We have noticed fhat legitim.ate caadidates have been deprived of getting adnussions as fhe infonnation fhat two seats were lyiag vacant was concealed to fhem. No notice was issued to fhem and the petitioners who were not at aU entifled to get admissions, as they stand very low in the inerit Ust, were given adnussions ia such a way, which is not expectable &ova the Govemm.ent or its ofiBcers, 13. Article 14 of fhe Constitution guarantees equaUly before ]aw to alt citizens. This guaraatee of equalily before law is a positive concept and it canxiot be enforced by au authority ia a negative niaaner. It would be the hope and expectetion of the fi-amers offhe Constitution that after iudependence eveiy citizen wUl get equal opportunily in any of fhe inatter under the State and fhe of&cials of fhe State would remain. committed to fhe Constitution and honesfty serve the people offhis countiy aud not spoUs fhe systein by actiuug inverse of fhe Constitution. In other words, if aa iUegaUty or irregularily has been conunitted iu favour of any pardcular individual or a group of individuals by aa Aufhorily which can be held to bc State within fhe meaning of Ardcle 12 of the Constitution, fhe said act amounts to violation of pruiciples ofnaturaljustice. 14. Ia the matter of Union of Indta v. Tulsitaxn Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 m Para 95 Hon'ble fhe Supreme Court heM. as under: The principles ofnatuialjustice have fhus coine to be recognized as being a part of fhe guarantee contauied ia Article 14 because of the new aud dynamic interpretation given by this 11 ^ '2<2- Court to the concept of equalily wbich is fhe subject matter of fhat article. Shordy put, the syUogisui runs fhus: Violation ofa rule ofnatural iustice results in arbitraruiess which is the same as discriin.uiation; where discnmination is fhe result of fhe State action, it js a violation of Article 14, fherefore, a violation of a principle of natural iustice bv a State action is a violation of Article 14, Article 14, however, is not the sole icpository of the principles of iiatural iustice. What it does is to guarantee tbat any law or State ac&>n violatmg ttieia ^U be struck down. The pnnciples of uatural iusti.ee, hpwever, apply not on]y to the legislation and State action but also where anv tribunal, authority or bodv of inen, not conune wifhin the defmition of 'State' in Ardcle 12, is chareed wifh the duty ofdeciding a matter, I:n_such a case, the pnnciples of nataral iustice require that it uaust decide such a matter fairly audJnipartiaU.v.'' (Eniphasis Suppliedl 15. The question artees here as to whefher fhe principles of natural justice aad equal opportutiily have been followed or uot at fhe tune of consideration of aUottaents of seats for adniission? As discussed iu the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners have been benefited in exclusion of oftiers by undue influeuce and way of aa inregular or iUegal inan.ner. The officials concemed are supposed to be totally iadependent and impartial while dischai^mg fheu- function ui fhe piocess of admissions to the MBBS course. The public interest m.ust be taken as supreine consideration aad there inay uot be any place for individual benefits. Public iaterest requires no coinpromise. Any violation thereof spoUs 12 the systeia. Therefore, if such acts are enforced, it shall amount to directmg to continue and perpetuate aa Ulegal procedure or aa Ulegal aUotment of seats. 16. In fhe present case there was deiual of equal opportunily by iguoring the ineritorious and suitable candidates m coinparison to the petitioners, wluch amounts to violation of natural justice. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coining to the conclusion that fhe petitioners were given adniissions iu utter violation of principles of natural justice, which are an iategral part of the guaraatee of equaUty assured by Article 14 ofthe Constitution. 17. In view of the above d^cussion, we do not find any good reasons warraatuig luterference in. fhe impugued orders. Both fhe writ petitions are Uable to be and are dumissed. No order as to cost(s). — Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao