HI©HCOURT Of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitjon No.2932 of 2003 PETETEONER: •^^ t. RESPONbENTS: Lakshmikant Soni, S/o Hiraram Soni, Aged about 22 years, R/o Behind Mahadev ^upta Hotel, Main Road, Tilak Nagar, Bitaspur (C.6.) Versus 1. z. 3. 5taTe of Chhatfisgarh, Throucih: The Secretary, Medical Education bepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.©.) ©uru©hasidasUniversiTy, Throuqh^ its Registrar, Bitaspur, Chhattis9orlh Institute Medical Sciences, Throuah: its Dean, Bilaspur. of TH POST FOR ORbER ON ^/w 5EPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge HI0H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH /^T BILASPUR ^ \. <-.- \- Writ Petjtion No. 2932 of 2003 PETETCONER: Lakshmikant Soni, S/o Hiraram Soni, Aged about 22 years, R/o Behind Mahadev <?upta Hotei, Main Road, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) RE5PONDENTS: Versus 1. 2. 3. State of ChhattisQarh, Throuqh: The Secretary, Medical Education bepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.B) (3uru (Shasidas University, ThrouQh: its Re9istrar, Bitaspur, Chhatti39Girh Institute Medical Sciences, Throuah: its Dean, Bilaspur. of Present: - Mr. P. biwaker, Advocate: For the petitioner Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawai, Deputy A.(3.: For the State/respondent No,l Mr, Manindra Shrivastavo, Advocate: For respondents 2 & 3 Before: Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo OR DER (Passed on 24th September, 2003) 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been communicated that a student who has already been admitted in the Institute in the year 2002-2003 witl not be entitled to take re-admission in the Institute for the year 2003- 2004. 2 ^e- 2. The petitioner's petition is that he appeared in 1+ie entrance examination for MBBS course commencing from the year 2002-2003 conducted by the Chhatti^garh Madhyamik Shik^ha Manda!, ftaipur, on 12.06.2002 and The result was also declared in July, 2002. BuT respondent No*3 was not c recognized In^titute and ultimately, th@ AAedicai Councii of India granted recognition in the year 2003. Thereafter, respondent No.3 started giving admissions for that session on 2nd June, 2003. Meanwhile, the petitioner again appeared in the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shishka Mandal on 05.06.2003 &, 06.06.2003 for session 2003-2004. However, the petitioner was called for counseiling for admission for tiie session 2002-2003 and he was given admission agdnst thepayment seat being an OBC candidate and was directed to pay fee^ of fts.l,44,OOOA before 10.06.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the fees and he is prosecutin9 his ^tudies. 3. Meanwhib, the resutt of the entrance examination conducted in the month of June, 2003, was declared and the petitioner has been shown at serial No.24 in the merit list of OBC candidates and in the overall merit iist he has been shown at seriai No.82. Accordingly, on 13 September, 2002, two call letters have been issued to the petitioner for counsellin9, one treatina him as OBC candidate and another treating him as a candidate of general category. In these cail letters a condition has been mentioned by respondent No,3 that students who have already b&enadmittsd in the Institute for th& year 2002-2003 wil! not be re-admitted for the year 2003-2004. The petitioner contacted the Dean of the Institute, byt the authorities have informed him that he is not entitled for free seat as he has already been given admission against payment seat for the year 2002-2003, as such the p^titioner cannot b@ permitted to participate in the counsellin9 commencing from 24th September, 2003. In simiiar cases, three student^ namely, Kum* Rashmi Agarwoi\, Prakash Khunte & Kum. Manjusha Devikar were admitted against the payment seat by, 1..,.,' respondent No,3 and in spite of that they have been given admission in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, a9ainst free seat on the basis of their selection for the year 2003-2004. Therefore, the respondents are not entJTled to adopt double standards for glving admission in two different medical colle9es and the petitioner is entitled, on ths basis of parity, to participate in the counselling. Therefore, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling to be held on 24 September, 2003, and they be further directed to refund the fees of Rs.1,44,000/- pdd by th©petitioner, 4. Return has been fikd on behalf of re^pondent^ 2 <& 3 in which it ha^ been mentioned ThaT Chhattisgarh Instjture of Medicai Sciences (hereinafter referred to os l CIMS') is a medicai college established by <5uru <5hasidas University. The answering respondents are governed by the rules and r^gulations of the Medial Council of India and the In^titute is atso bound to follow the rules, regulation^ and ian$tructions issued by the State ©overnment from time to time concerning admission to MBBS course. The Uniyersity bein9 an autonomou^ Institute and a creature of statute is governed by it^ own ordinance, statute and regulations, 5, Ordinance No,7 (Annexure ft-2/1) ha^ been framed by the Uniyer^ity, which generally covers the matter reiating to admission. ClausBa-2 thereof clearly stipulates that admission to the educational institutes shall be made on the basis of merit and seats shatl be reserved therein according to the norms laid down by the 5tate Oovernment from time to time, Since the establishment of medical coltege by the University, it has besn framing its own rules of admission, which are consistent with the ^overnment direction and guidelines, and also (Sovernment rules relating to admission to MBBS course, For the session 2003- 2004, the 5tate Sovernment has promulgated relevant ruies for admission to MBB5 course in the State of Chhattisgarh, known as '^s^^.^.M^.^w''.^.'.'.'.^^ Ti " Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Tatha Dunt Chikitsa 5natak Pravesh Panksha Niyam 2003\ The answering respondent5 haye al^o framed rules for the year 2003 and general directive^ were i33ued by the ^overnment, which relaTe to admission to all educational instituTions including the medical CO\\QQQS. The answering respondent$ followinQ the rules and guideiines issued by the State ^overnment in the matrer of admission issued circular dated 12.07.2003 (Annexure R-2/2) to all the colleges affiiiated to 6uru Shasidas University. In the ruks framed by the answering respondenfs it has clearly been provided that The students who have already been admitted in the year 2002-2003 will not be given re-admission for the year 2003-2004. It has been clearly indicated in the letter issued to the candidates. Rules of 2003 are Annexure ft-2/3< Therefore, th©petitioner's pe-tition de^erve^ to b© dismissed, 6. I have heard the learned counset for the parties. 7. AAr. P, Diwaker, leamed counsel oppearing for the petitioner araued that the respondents are not entitled to impose any condition which makes the petitioner ineligjble from taking admission in the same course subsequcntly as at the timc of conductin9 the PAAT examination for the year 2003 by the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandai, a brochure contdnin9 rules and re9ulation$, eli9ibility criteria was i^^ued and in that brochure no such condition has been laid down and three students who were studying along with the petitioner in the Chhatti^arh Institute of Medicat Sciences have already been admitted by JawQharlal Nehru AAedical College, Raipur. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be discriminated by re^pondent No.3, as respondent No,3 and Jawaharlal N&hru Medical College, both are ^overnment Coll&ges and they cannot have different rules and regulations in the matter of giving admission to the students. Therefore, this rule is discriminotory. 8. On th^ other hand, Mr. Manindra ShriyastavQ, tearned counset appearing on behalf of respondents 2 <& 3, argued That respondcnt 5 ^^ ^-.-,-Y v No.S-AAedicai Colleoe is under &uru 6hasidas Uniyersitv and Jawaharlal Nehru Medicat College is not under Guru Shasida^ Univer^ity, Ordinance No.7 (Annexure ft-2/1) is issued by 6uru ^hasidas University. By circutar datsd 12.07.2003 (Annexure R-2/2) of the said University, respondent No,3 issued ruies 9overnin9 the admission to MBBS course (Annexure R-2/3). As per rule 2.6.2 (b), a rule has been framed according to guideline No.9<l issued by the Soyernment of Chhattisgarh regarding the admission in graduate and post-graduate colleges for 1+ie year 2003-2004 that if anyone has taken admission in CIAAS, Bilaspur, for the session 2002-2003 then, he will not be entitled to take re-admission in th©same class for the session 2003-2004. 9. Having heard the iearned counsel for The partles and having perused the relevont record, 6uru ^hasidas University, under who^e control the CIMS is functioning, issued Or'dinance No.7 regarding admission of students to a college, uniyersity, teaching department or school of ^tudie^, tran^fer of students and maintenance of di^cipline. ftule 2 of Ordinance No,7 prescribes that admission to a educational institutions ^hall be made on the basis of merit and seat^ shall be re^erved therein according to the norms laid down by the State (Sovernment from time to time and under this Rule, respondent No*3 issued brochure regarding admission to MBBS course containing the rules for the year 2003-2004 (Annexure R-2/3). Rule 2.6.2 (b) of Rules for Admission for MBBS course prescribes that if a student has taken admission for the session 2002-2003, then he/she witl not be entitled to se&k rs-admission for the session 2003-2004. It is admitted position That the petitioner had atready taken admission in the first year of MBBS course for the session 2002-2003 and he has deposited the fees also and pursuing studies since June, 2003, as the admission for the session 2002-2003 was d&lay&d for th<g reason that CIMS could not get r^cognition by the Medical Coundl of India and Medical Council of India recognized CIMS yery late* Therefore, admissions for the session 2002-20Q3 which were supposed to be given in the month of JuIy/August, 2002, were \.^ 6 '^^;, {> •(.1; V gjven oniy in the month of June, 2003. Therefore, since the petitioner has already taken admis^ion against the payment seat for th@ ^Eession 2002-2003, as ^uch he is not entstled to take re-admission in the same course for the year 2003-2004 against the free seot, even if he has secured merit in the PMT examination* CIAAS is within its ri9ht to prescribe such condition and this not arbitrary, irrationai and uitra- virus to Articles 14 <& 16 of the Constitution of India 10.In similar situation, th© Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mabel vs. Stat®of Haryana and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 318 held that "the intention of the authorit^ concerned in framin9 ciause 18 appears to be to ensure that a candidate who ha^ Glready secured admission with his free will in any course (AABBS or BDS) should complete that course ond should not chonge his mind in the midstream. The candidate should not abandon the studies after th© commencement of that course to seek admission in another course which is in the public interest, for otherwise it would refiult in the wastage of the seat in the course in which he has takenadmission, and further, such a chan9e would depriye another eli9ible candidate from seeking admission to the other course." 11. Now, coming to the question of discrimination, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College is not under Guru ^hasida^ University and if that colkge has not prescribed such condition, that does not mean that CIMS which is under the control of (5uru (^iasidas University is not entitted to prescribe any such condition which disentitles a candidat® to seek re-admission in the same course in the subseque.nt year, because under Ordinance No.7, the Univer^it^ ha5 given authority and und&r ftule 2 of Ordinance No.7, the medicat college and University are entitled to prescribe such conditions. Even otherwi^, even though Jawaharlal Nehru Medical Co\\eqe also ought to have, having regard to guideline No.9.1 issued by th@ State ©ovemmentfor the session 2003- 2004/inserted such a clause, but inadvertently, or otherwise, if ^ 7 '^ '.i,.i Soma fea^- ^ Jawaharlaj Nehru Medical CoIIege has not incorporated such condition, then the petitioner cannot take advantage of that nor can a^k for as a right that CIMS should not also incorporate any such condition which disentitles the petitioner to seek re-admission in The same course in the subsequent year. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the iearned counsel for the petitioner on this ground also. 12. Now, coming To The argumenT of The tearned counsel for The peTiTioner that Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal who conducted the PAAT examination for the session 2003-2004 has not prescribed any sf^h condition in the brochure issued by that Mandal, therefore, CIMS is not entitled to frame separate ruk which disentitle^ the petitioner from admission, I do not find ony force in this ||rgument aiso for the reason that CIMS is a medical college which is workin9 under the control of Gum Ghasidas Univer'sity and it is within its right to frame rutesand guidelines regulating the admission to MBBS course and r^spondent No,3-Medicat Colle9e \s also entitled to conduct entrance examination for the admission. But on account of deiay in recognition by the Medical Council of India, re^pondent No,3 per-force ha^ to ask for the merit iist of the ^tudents which wasprepared by the Mandal after conducting the PMT examination as very short time was left with respondent No.3 as per the guidelincs is^ued by the Supreme Court that no admissions can be given after the month of 5eptember by the Medical Colle9es, The norms and guidetines regarding the admission fixed by the Mandal in any way cannot bind respondent No.3 to abide by or follow Those norms. 13. In view of the fore9oin9 reason^, I am of the opinion that the petition of the p&titioner is devoid of merit and th& ^ame is fiabk to b& dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismis^d. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge