Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 Date of Order: 4th November, 2011 Dr. Anshu Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Y.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent no.2 in the M.D. Pathology course and prays that respondent no.1 may be directed to admit the petitioner to the course of M.D.Pathology. The petitioner applied for admission to the M.D. Course, in respondent no.1-College and was allotted Roll No.4364. The petitioner appeared for the written test on 27.02.2011 and secured qualifying marks. The petitioner also passed an objective structured examination held on 13.03.2011. The petitioner was placed at Sr.No.47 in the merit list. The Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -2- petitioner opted for Surgical Speciality in the first counseling held on 30.03.2011 but did not succeed. The petitioner was offered admission in MD Pharmacology, in the second counseling, held on 30.04.2011. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,82,000/- in cash but finally surrendered the seat. The fee was refunded to the petitioner vide demand draft No.036002, dated 10.05.2011. The third counseling was held on 30.05.2011. It is at this stage that facts urged by the petitioner and the respondent no.1-college begin to differ. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during 3rd counseling held on 30.05.2011, the petitioner opted for MD Pathology, in Basic Science and a seat was offered to her. The petitioner was required to deposit the entire fee of Rs.2,98,000/- on 30.05.2011, itself. The petitioner offered to return demand draft No.036002 dated 10.05.2011 and pay the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- in cash. An official of the respondent no.1- College made an endorsement on the reverse side of the draft “pay to CMC”. The college eventually refused to accept the draft. After 10-15 minutes, the petitioner arranged the entire fee in cash but the respondents refused to accept cash and proceeded to allot the seat to another candidate-respondent no.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondent-college that the petitioner was not present, at the time of the third counseling, is falsified by her journey tickets, Annexure P-7 and P-8 and from the endorsement made Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -3- on the reverse side of the demand draft. As the petitioner was offered seat in M.D. Pathology and is admittedly a more meritorious candidate than respondent no.2, the respondents should be directed to accept the fee and grant admission to the petitioner. Counsel for respondent no.1-Christian Medical College submits that the petitioner's name was called out thrice during third counseling, held on 30.05.2011. She was not present and was, therefore, declared absent. The seat was offered to the next candidate. As candidates at Sr.No.28 to 32 were also absent, the seat was offered to respondent no.2, whose name figured at Sr.No.33. It is further submitted that these facts are duly recorded in proceedings of the Counseling Committee, appended with the reply as Annexure R-2/1. It is further argued that the petitioner was aware that entire fee was to be deposited, by a demand draft drawn in favour of the College, at the time of counseling, itself. Even it is presumed, though, not admitted, that the petitioner was present, the fact that she has admitted that she did not possess a demand draft of Rs.2,98,000/- drawn in the name of the College, she is disentitle to any relief. It is further submitted that the petitioner's plea that she offered Rs.2,82,000/- by way of demand draft and Rs.16,000/-, in cash, and thereafter arranged the entire fee in cash is false, incorrect and remains unsubstantiated by a reference to any evidence. It is also submitted that the fact that Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -4- the petitioner is in possession of railway tickets, may prima-facie establish that she travelled to Ludhiana on 29.05.2011, and back from Ludhiana on 30.05.2011, is irrelevant. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish her presence during counseling. Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that as the petitioner did not participate in the counseling, the seat was rightly offered to respondent no.2. The story set up by the petitioner is unbelievable, false and remains unsubstantiated for want of any clear or cogent material. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The first question that requires adjudication is whether the petitioner was present before the counseling committee on 30.05.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner was offered admission in MD Pharmacology, during the second counseling. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,82,000/-. It is also admitted that she surrendered this seat and the fee of Rs.2,82,000/- was returned to her vide demad draft No.036002, dated 10.05.2011. The petitioner claims that she appeared before the Counseling Committee, during the third counseling on 30.05.2011 and was offered a seat in MD Pathology Basic Science. She made a request to the College that the bank draft returned to her, during the second counseling and Rs.16,000/- in cash, be accepted as her fee. The demand draft was accepted by one Mr. Prabhakaran, Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -5- who endorsed the words “Pay to CMC” on the reverse side of the draft. The draft was, however, rejected as it was in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, arranged Rs.2,98,000/- in cash but this amount was not accepted and the petitioner was marked absent. The respondent-College, on the other hand, has taken a diametrically opposite stand. The respondent-College claims that the petitioner did not appear before the Counseling Committee and was, therefore, marked absent. The stand taken by the respondent-College that the petitioner did not appear before the Counseling Committee, appears to be incorrect in view of the endorsement on the reverse of the demand draft “Pay to CMC” signed by one Mr. Prabhakaran and tends to support the petitioner's plea. A perusal of averments in the reply, filed by the respondent no.3, reveals that the endorsement made on the reverse of the demand draft has not been specifically denied. In fact, respondent no.3 has pleaded that the endorsement is of no consequence, and is not signed by a competent person, in essence, admitting the endorsement but denying its validity. A relevant extract from the petition reads as follows:- “10. That even, the Cash Branch of the respondent no.1 make endorsement on the back of draft (P-4) as “Pay to CMC”. This endorsement was made by Mr. Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -6- Parbhakaran, but of no avail.” A relevant extract from the reply filed by respondent no.3 reads as follows:- 10. That the contents of para No.10 are wrong and denied. The endorsement as allegedly made by Mr. Parbhakaran is of no consequence. Since the petitioner had failed to appear in the counseling for Basic Science and she was not at all ready with the demand draft of Rs.2,98,000/- in the name of “Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society”, she cannot claim any benefit of the noting as alleged in the present paragraph. It may also be submitted here that the noting is not at all signed by any competent authority and even otherwise, denotes the raising of objection that the draft is required to be in the name of “Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society”. Otherwise also the petitioner had ample time to pay the fee by way of bank draft if she had been present at the time of counseling.” The averments in para 10 of the petition are denied by averring that the endorsement is of no consequence as the Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -7- petitioner failed to appear for counseling and that the endorsement is not signed by a competent authority, in essence admitting the endorsement though denying its validity. The conduct of the College leaves much to be described as, instead of admitting that the petitioner appeared during counseling but was denied a seat as she did not pay the fee as prescribed, the college has chosen to raise a false plea that the petitioner was not present. The railway tickets, Annexures P-7 and P-8, which prima-facie, establish that the petitioner travelled to Ludhiana on 30.05.2011. To expect the petitioner, to travel to Ludhiana and thereafter not appear before the Counseling Committee, appears to be a little farfetched. It, however, appears that she did present the demand draft No.036002, dated 10.05.2011 alongwith cash of Rs.16,000/- to the respondents. However, the story put forth by the petitioner that she arranged cash of Rs.2,98,000/-, in cash, within 10-15 minutes does not inspire confidence as it remains unsubstantiated for reference to any evidence of withdrawal of this amount from a bank or any affidavit/statement by any person who arranged these funds. The story that petitioner arranged Rs.2,98,000/- in cash appears to be an after thought, cooked up so as to buttress the her case. It appears that the petitioner appeared before the Counseling Committee on 30.05.2011, was offered a seat in Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -8- Pharmacology Basic Science but the offer was revoked as the petitioner did not deposit fee in the manner prescribed. Admittedly, a candidate was required to pay the entire fee for the MD course at the time of counseling. The prospectus prescribes that a candidate, who fails to pay the fee, in the manner prescribed, is not entitled to admission and consequently looses the seat which shall then be offered to the next candidate. The condition set out in the prospectus regarding deposit of fee reads as follows:- “SUBMISSION OF FEE The full fees must be submitted following scrutiny of relevant original certificates and testimonials etc. as per schedule given above (on 28.03.2011). The fee has to be submitted in the form of Bank Demand Draft only in favour of “Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society” drawn on any scheduled/nationalized bank payable at Ludhiana. If the seat is not claimed by full payment of college fees and submission of relevant certificates and testimonial etc. by the above mentioned day and time, the offer will be withdrawn and the seat will be offered to the next applicant on the list on merit Civil Writ Petition No.10972 of 2011 -9- course/category wise. It is necessary that in order to get admission, an applicant must submit College fees in full for the Academic year 2011-12. In addition, all relevant certificates and testimonials in original must also be submitted at the time of counseling to the Registrar, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, otherwise fees will not be accepted.” The petitioner was required to pay fee by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society” . The petitioner as per her own showing, was not in possession of a demand draft as required by the prospectus and, therefore, could not be admitted. The terms and conditions set out in a prospectus have to be adhered to and can in no circumstance be altered. The petitioner was aware, that she was required to present a demand draft in favour of the college. I, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the writ petition, with a note of caution to the College that it should plead the truth and desist from making incorrect averments. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. November 4th, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE