w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Sunita Dangi v/s Director General, Directorate General of Health Services & Others

    Writ Petition No. 16282 of 2014

    Decided On, 13 June 2016

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh


    For the Petitioner: Akshay Pawar, learned Counsel. For the Respondents/State: Piyush Dharmadkhikari, learned Government Advocate.

Judgment Text

1. Petitioner who had appeared in the All India Pre Medical Test, 2014 and secured merit position AIR No. 44014 and OBC ranking 17347 participated in the counselling process undertaken in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 3. The counselling commenced from 23.6.2014 and the petitioner being lower in the merit appeared in the fourth offline counselling. It seems that the petitioner in the offline counselling was found entitled for allotment of seat in private medical college, namely People’s Medical College, Bhopal, but grievance of the petitioner is that within 30 minutes of allotment made to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 issued a cancellation order and communicated it to the petitioner, as the petitioner according to the Counselling Committee did not produced the original documents before the appropriate Committee at the time of allotment of seat. Challenging the aforesaid action, the writ petition was filed and while filing the writ petition various prayers were made in the writ petition, which includes challenge to clause 11 of the All India Pre medical Test-2014 Rules and Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Autonomous/Government Medical College and Dental Under-Graduate Admission Rules, 2014. That apart, a relief was sought for to say that the act of respondent No. 3 in cancelling the admission is illegal.

2. When the matter was taken up on 9.2.2016, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofChandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, (2014) 10 SCC 521counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the issues raised by the petitioner in the writ petition stands answered against the petitioner. However, a prayer was made that in view of mental agony and pecuniary loss caused to petitioner, she be permitted to amend the writ petition and claim compensation. Accordingly, after 09.02.2016 the petition has been amended and now as per amended clause petitioner claims compensation of Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs) on account of illegal cancellation of her admission by respondent No. 3.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the provisions of Clause 3.4 of the Rules of 2014 and argued that the power for cancellation of the admission vests with the representative college and respondent No. 3 had no authority to cancel the admission granted. Accordingly, it was argued that the cancellation had been done illegally by respondent No. 3, he has no power to cancel the admission, it is only the Dean or the Principal of the College who is authorised to cancel the admission and if admission is illegally cancelled, prayer is made that the compensation be awarded.

Rule 3.4 relied upon by the petitioner reads as under :-

3.4 If it is found that a candidate has hidden any relevant facts and/or provided incorrect information while filling up the application form, at the time of scrutiny of the documents, at the time of allotment of a seat, or at the time of his/her admission, then the admission shall be cancelled by the Dean/Principal of the college, at any time during his/her studies and FIR shall also be lodged.

4. On the contrary, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate points out that Rule 3.4 comes into play only after the admission is properly granted and the candidate is admitted to the college after allotment. It is pointed out that, in this case, at the time of counselling itself it is found that petitioner had participated in the counselling in a manner which is contrary to rule. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Rules for counselling as contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014 and points out that at the time of admission itself, the candidate is required to produce all the original documents and as in this case the petitioner did not produced the original documents at the time of counselling, it is stated that immediately when these facts came to the notice of respondent No. 3, who was In-charge of the counselling at the relevant time, the impugned action had been taken. Shri Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate invited our attention to Rules 12, 13 and 14 in this regard and points out that deposit of the original documents at the time of counselling is a mandatory requirement and as this has been violated, the respondent No. 3 immediately withdrew the offer of admission. Shri Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate specifically refers to Rule 15 and points out that allotment and scrutiny of documents are done by respondent No. 3 and as petitioner did not comply with the requirement of Rule 15, at the time of admission, in this case the respondent No. 3 was well within his right in taking the impugned action. Rule 15 relied upon by learned Government Advocate reads as under :-

15.Allotment- After scrutiny the eligible candidates will be allotted seat as per their merit. For seat allotment it is compulsory for the candidate to be present physically to choose course/College as per his/her merit and category. The candidate will not be eligible if not present physically. If a candidate who failed to appear on scheduled date and time but if he/she appears late any time during counselling in that case he/she will be eligible for available seats at the time of counselling according to merit and category. Dean Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal will ensure the videography of allotment process.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that in the light of the statement made by petitioner’s counsel on 09.02.2016 and in view of law laid down in the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra) now the only question warranting consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the admission and allotment granted to the petitioner was cancelled contrary to statutory rules and therefore petitioner is entitled to compensation for the mental agony and pecuniary loss. If we go through the rules of admission, the procedure for counselling is indicated in Clause 11. According to Rule 11 the counselling is to be held in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal which is the Centralised Counselling Centre in the State of Madhya Pradesh and scrutiny of original documents of allotted candidates has to be done at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal where the candidate has to appear along with the original documents before the Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. On perusal of the requirement of counselling, as is laid down from Rule 11 onwards we find that in the admission process an eligible candidate has to appear at the Gandhi Medical College and scrutiny of original documents is done under the administrative control of Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. In the case of petitioner it is seen that the petitioner did not produce the original documents and therefore at the time of scrutiny, as the original documents were not produced by the petitioner, finding petitioner ineligible for allotment, the allotment made at the time of counselling was cancelled immediately within 30 minutes. Except for making vague allegations to say that respondent No. 3 was annoyed with the petitioner, no cogent evidence or material in support of the aforesaid allegations are made. According to the petitioner, once admission is granted to the petitioner, power for cancellation under Rule 3.4 is with the college, where the admission is granted and not with respondent No. 3.

6. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of petitioner. Rule 3.4 comes into play and will be applicable only after admission is granted and the admission is to be cancelled on the grounds contemplated under rule 3.4, as reproduced here in above. However, prior to this, allotment of seat, scrutiny of documents and various other aspects of the matter are to be undertaken in the centralised counselling center, which is Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and the Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal is In-charge for counselling. In accordance to procedure contemplated from Rule 11 onwards till Rule 15, in fact at the time of counselling in the 4th round petitioner was allotted a seat in the institute in question, but immediately after such off-line allotment was made it was found that petitioner had not produced the original documents for scrutiny. As the original documents were not produced by the petitioner, the allotment made to the petitioner was immediately withdrawn by respondent No. 3 and a perusal of the procedure for counselling contemplated from rule 11 onwards clearly goes to show that in the centralised counselling to be held all original documents of the allotted candidates has to be produced before the authorities/the Dean Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and the original documents are to be scrutinised by the authorities in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and the Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal is given overall supervision control over such scrutiny. In this regard the procedure for counselling contemplated under Rule 11 sub rule (v) and (vi) clearly mandates production of original documents in the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal at the time of allotment. Admittedly from the material available on record it is clear that the petitioner did not produced the original documents at the time of scrutiny. In fact the petitioner p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

roduced a certificate issued by the Dean/Head of the Institute to show that all the original documents are deposited with the institute concerned. This does not fulfil the requirement of the rule. If rules 11 to 15 are read together, it mandates appearing in the counselling at the time of allotment in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal along with all the original documents. There is nothing in this rule which suggests that deposit of the documents with the institute and production of a certificate of such deposit is sufficient enough. In this case, admittedly on account of petitioner’s inability to produce the original documents, the allotment granted to him was cancelled and this is being in accordance to requirement of rule and power available in this regard with respondent No.3, we see no case made out for granting any compensation to the petitioner as claimed for. 7. Accordingly, finding the claim for compensation to be misconceived and not permissible the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.