IMPORTANT POINTS
A party indulging in delays and latches is not entitled to any relief.
A candidate displaying recalcitrant attitude cannot be permitted to adversely affect prospects of other candidates.

Headnote:(a) Medical Education – Admission – Principles culled out. (Para 30)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay and latches – Prospectus issued in April 2103 – Last date of filing applications 24.06.2013 – Respondent knowing full well she did not fulfill criteria for first category of NRI – Submitting application on 21.06.2013 under second category of NRI – Challenging criteria of first category on 05.07.2013 – Total lack of diligence on the part of Respondent to work out her remedies – Not entitled to relief. (Para 33)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay and latches – Contesting respondent a candidate for session 2013-14 – Because of delay and latches on part of contesting respondent in filing writ petition and LPA, decision on her admission delayed – Division Bench of High Court pronouncing impugned judgment in January 2104 for session 2013-14 – Impugned judgment permitting admission of contesting respondent in session 2014-15 – Would certainly affect prospects of the other respondent, a candidate for session 2014-15 – No good ground justifying impugned judgment – Such practices should not be encouraged. (Para 34, 35, 36, 38, 39)
       (2012) 7 SCC 389; (2012) 7 SCC 433; (2012) 1 SCC 177 – Relied upon
       (1995) 3 SCC 486; (1979) 3 SCC 489; (1993) Suppl. (2) SCC 71; (2000) 9 SCC 115; (2014) 1 SCC 554; (2009) 15 SCC 458; (2012) 10 SCC 149; (2002) 8 SCC 152; (2012) 8 SCALE 504; (1965) 3 SCR 536; (2013) 5 SCC 1; (1986) 4 SCC 268; (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 169; (1986) Suppl. SCC 285; (2011) 1 SCC 150; (2009) 5 SCC 515; (2008) 4 SCC 171; (2002) 6 SCC 127; (2003) 3 SCC 366 – Referred
       Medical Education – Admission – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay and latches – Cases like the one at hand displaying recalcitrant attitude – Should not be encouraged – Directions issued. (Para 40)

       Facts of the case:
       The contesting Respondent being a Canadian Citizen is an NRI, that, therefore, she was entitled to seek admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the NRI category quota.
       However, the definition of NRI as specified in the prospectus issued by the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College, Chandigarh for the academic year 2014-15 would denude her of such status. It was prayed therefore to strike it down.
       The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and finally directed that she should be admitted in the MBBS course of 2014-15.
       Finding of the Court:
       A candidate displaying recalcitrant attitude cannot be permitted to adversely affect prospects of other candidates.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No.2051 of 2013 dated 13.01.2014 and C.M. No.623 of 2014 in RA No.9 of 2014 in LPA No.2051 of 2013. The Appellants in SLP(C) No.18137-18138 of 2014 are the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh. The Appellant in SLP(C) No.18099 of 2014 has filed the Special Leave Petition with the permission of this Court, who was not a party, either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3. Leave to file Special Leave Petition was granted in SLP(C) No.18099/2014 considering the grievances expressed by the said Appellant contending that in the event of the impugned orders of the Division Bench being implemented, her chance of getting admission to the course of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2014-15 under the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) category would be impinged.

4. The present impugned orders of the Division Bench came to be passed at the instance of the contesting Respondent in both the Civil Appeals who was really aggrieved of a clause in the prospectus issued by the Appellants in SLP(C) No.18137-18138 of 2014 (hereinafter called “the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College Chandigarh”), which according to her was not valid. According to the contesting Respondent, she being a Canadian Citizen is an NRI, that, therefore, she was entitled to seek admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the NRI category quota but yet the definition of NRI as specified in the prospectus issued by the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College, Chandigarh for the academic year 2014-15 would denude her of such status and, therefore, it was liable to be struck down. The said definition, which was contained in paragraph 2 of the prospectus of 2013-14, was as under:

“2. Eligibility and Merit for NRI seats (03 Seats) for MBBS Course:

In addition to the general conditions above, under the NRI Category 03 seats shall be filled up as per preference order of Category 1 and 2, given as under:-

First preference will be given to those NRI candidates who have ancestral background of Chandigarh (Category 1):

For ancestral background of Chandigarh, the grandparents/parents of the candidates should be resident of Chandigarh for a minimum period of 5 years at anytime since the origin of Chandigarh and should have immovable property in his/her name in Chandigarh for the last at least 5 years. A certificate to this effect is required from DC-cum-Estate Officer or Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh.

Second preference will be given to those NRI candidates who have ancestral background of States/UTs other than UT Chandigarh (Category 2). A certificate regarding ancestral background of the other State/UT from the competent authority is to be submitted in case of students with ancestral background of other States/UTs.

There will be no separate test/entrance test for the candidates applying for NRI/Foreign Indian Student. These candidates will have to obtain the eligibility & equivalence certificate for their qualifying examination from the Punjab University, Chandigarh. (as mentioned in general condition point no.f)”

5. The contesting Respondent claimed that her grand-father retired as an Under Secretary in the year 1994, that when he was in the services of the State of Chandigarh he resided in a Government house from 1965 to 1984 and shifted to another Government accommodation provided by the Chandigarh Administration from 1984 to 1994, that third set of government accommodation was provided by the Government to the father of the contesting Respondent which was occupied till December 2003 and that thereafter, her father started living in the house of her grandfather in Mohali. The contesting Respondent claimed that she passed as a regular student from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 617

IMPORTANT POINTSA party indulging in delays and latches is not entitled to any relief. A candidate displaying recalcitrant attitude cannot be permitted to adversely affect prospects of other candidates.

Cases Referred (21)

IMPORTANT POINTS
A party indulging in delays and latches is not entitled to any relief.
A candidate displaying recalcitrant attitude cannot be permitted to adversely affect prospects of other candidates.