2007 Supreme(SC) 36

2007(2) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Vikram Dhillon—Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Ors.—Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 652 of 2004
Decided on 10-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ajay Jha and Ms. Rukhmini Bobde (for M/s. P.H. Parekh and Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, D. Mahesh Babu, Pradeep Dahiya, Sandeep Sharma (for T.V. George), Ms. Kavita Wadia, Maninder Singh, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Yogendra Handoo, Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Sumit Bhatia, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, T. Srinivasa Murthy (for Mrs. Sushma Suri), Aseem Mehrotra and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 32—Writ petition—Allegation about back door admission having been granted to respondent 6—Prayer to grant admission to the petitioner in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) in open category in Government Dental College—Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak invited applications for ‘Common Entrance Examination, 2004’ for admission to MBBS/BDS in medical/dental colleges/institutes of the State of Haryana—Petitioner having scored 128 marks out of 180 marks was ranked at Sl. No. 423 in the Open Category—Petitioner opted for MBBS course in any of the medical colleges—Alternatively he opted for BDS course in Government Dental College, Rohtak—As no seats were available in MBBS anywhere or in BDS course in Government Dental College, petitioner opted for BDS course in a private Dental College—Petitioner preferred to be wait listed for MBBS and if no vacancy available then for a seat in BDS in Government Dental College—Third counselling was held on 29-9-2004—Respondent 6 who had secured rank No. 442, she had been granted admission on provisional basis in BDS course in Government Dental College—Probably, petitioner was not present on 30-9-2004—Representation was made for the first time after about 18 days—Whether grant of admission to respondent 6 on 30-9-2004 can be cancelled at this stage—(No).

       Held : In our opinion, there is intrinsic evidence also which goes to show that probably the petitioner was not present on September 30, 2004. Admittedly, respondent No. 6 Anusha Singh was granted admission on September 30, 2006. It is the case of the petitioner from the beginning that on or about October 17, 2004, the petitioner came to know that admission was illegally granted to respondent No. 6 though her rank was 442 and rank of petitioner was 423. He, therefore, submitted a representation on October 19, 2004. Had the petitioner been present on September 30, 2004, he would have objected to the admission of respondent No. 6. Again he would have immediately come to know about her admission. In that case, he would have instantly approached the authorities putting forward his claim, but it was not done. In fact, a representation was made for the first time after about 18 days stating therein that he came to know on October 17, 2004 that admission was given to respondent No. 6 ignoring his legitimate claim. In the circumstances, in our opinion, grant of admission to respondent No. 6 on September 30, 2004 cannot be cancelled at this stage.(Para 25)

       Since, we are of the view and have held that on September 30, 2004, the petitioner in all probability was not present and admission was granted to respondent No. 6 Anusha Singh and the first complaint was made by him as late as on October 19, 2004 by stating that he had come to know about the illegality of admission in favour of respondent No. 6 on October 17, 2004, in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, it would not be appropriate for this Court to award compensation to the petitioner either from the authorities or from the respondent No. 9 in his personal capacity. It is, however, open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. As and when such eventuality arises, the appropriate authority will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law without being inhibited or influenced by the observations made by us in this judgment.(Para 38)

       It was also the case of the State as reflected in the order dated November 16, 2005 passed by this Court that illegal admission was granted by respondent No. 9. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate if the State had filed an affidavit placing necessary facts before this Court. It is the duty of the State Government to see not only that the officers act in consonance with law, but also to ensure that no injustice has been done to meritorious students. Unfortunately however, the State Government has not properly assisted the Court by placing the relevant facts as are expected to be placed by a public authority. But in the light of what has been stated earlier, since we are not in a position to grant relief to the petitioner, we leave the matter there.(Para 40)