2009 Supreme(Guj) 388

2010 (2) GCD 1680 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi
Aman Piyush Khanna, Thro’ Father & Guardian Piyush Krishna & Ors.
Versus
State of Gujarat, Thro’ Secretary & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 5599 of 20091—Decided on 08/07/2009

Point in Issue :
Whether belated change in weightage formula by Government in Rules of admission sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       (a) Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009 — Rules 10 and 11 — Providing for two separate merit list’s for Central Board students and CISCE students — Validity of Rules — Held, Rules are valid and further the principle of equality and fairness in admission process — It shall, therefore, not be appropriate to strike down the same simply because earlier different procedure was followed or because such a change is made fairly late.

       Held :

       His main contention however, as noted earlier was that such a policy change was made at a highly belated stage, thus jeopardizing the prospects of students of CISCE. It is true that this change was made by the Government in the present admission process. It is equally true that such a change was made fairly late. However, only on that count, rules cannot be held to be ultra vires. In fact, the rules bring the procedure in tune with the requirement of common yardstick for students coming from common stream. Clubbing Central Board student with CISCE students, did not strictly fulfill this requirement. The rules thus are in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also fulfill the requirement of not equating the students from different background without any modulation.

       When Court find that these rules are valid and further the principle of equality and fairness in admission process, it would not be appropriate on our part to strike down the same, simply because previously somewhat different procedure was being followed and that the present change is affected at a late stage. [Para 9.1]

       Head Note :

       (b) Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009 — Rules 5(1)(B) and 5(5) — Admission for Medical and Paramedical Seats — Government Policy to permit those who have passed 12th standard in previous year — Contention that admission should be confined to those who have passed HSC Examination this academic year — Held, Government Policy not faulty — If a student in the previous year for some reason of illness etc. could not perform according to his potential his fate need not be seated for ever — Giving an additional opportunity can not be stated to be a policy which is unreasonable or arbitrary.

       Held :

       Court is concerned with comparing students from same Eduction Board of the State. Some students have appeared in the HSC Board for current academic year and some might have appeared in the previous years. As noticed, the Admission Rules permit the students of previous years also to apply in the current academic year subject to two qualifications i.e. firstly they have to appear in the GUJCET examination conducted by the State this year and secondly, that such students should not have secured admission in the previous academic year. Insistence on appearance in the current GUJCET examination provides at-least in the entrance test, a common yardstick between all students. Further, by not permitting a student of previous year to apply for current year, if he already has secured admission previously is aimed at not permitting the students to change their courses and to ensure against certain professional seats lapsing on account of such changes. Government policy cannot be faulted. If a student in the previous year for some reason of illness, adverse family circumstances or some other unfortunate cause, could not perform according to his potential in the entrance test, his fate need not be sealed for ever. Giving an additional opportunity to such a student, cannot be stated to be a policy which is unreasonable or arbitrary. [Para 8.1]

       Court does not find that Government policy suffers from any illegality. It is significant to note that the Rules are sufficiently clear in this respect. It permits a student of previous year to be selected provided he appears in GUJCET of the current year and has not secured admission in any professional courses previously. Significantly, the Rules are not under challenge. Even otherwise we have examined the Government policy keeping in mind reasonableness as also Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no reason to interfere. Petition deserves to be dismissed. [Para 8.3]

       Head Note :

       (c) Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009 — Rules 11, 11(1) — Admission — Weightage formula — Change from 79% to qualifying examination and 21% to common test to 60:40 in Rule — Challenge on ground of belated change, promissory estoppels and denial of legitimate expectations — Held, not sustainable — Petitioners themselves do not seriously doubt the wisdom behind making the alleged change in formula to 60/40 instead of 79/21 — They only contend that after examinations were conducted and results declared the present change is not permissible — Court observed that admittedly decision of Government in this regard came rather late but it is difficult to say that only on that account of timing same should be rendered illegal.

       Held :

       The rules are clear in their implications. They provide for projecting the Board marks over a scale of 100 and thereafter to take 60% thereof for preparing a select list. This is to be added by 40% of the GUJCET marks after projecting the same similarly on the scale of 100. Explanation to the Rule 11(1) further clarifies this position. To this aspect there is no doubt at all even in the minds of the petitioners. They do not seriously doubt the wisdom behind making such a change. They only contend that after examinations were conducted and results declared that the present change was made which was not permissible.

        [Para 10.1]

       It is true that the decision of the Government in this regard came rather late. It is equally true that to such belated changes, this Court has frowned upon. However, it is a different thing to say that only on account of timing of the change, the same should be rendered illegal. We are afraid such a contention cannot be accepted. The argument of the petitioners that they did not get sufficient opportunity to focus sufficiently on the entrance test on account of late change also cannot be accepted. In this day of fierce competition where admissions are decided on fraction of a mark, it is expected that all meritorious students would bestow sufficient and equal attention to all sections of all examinations without favoring or disfavoring one or the other. Therefore, to contend that had Government declared its policy of increasing the weightage of entrance test in time, petitioners would have focused more on that examination is an argument which needs to be rejected out of hand. [Para 10.2]

       No case is made out also on the ground of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation. It is not stated as to how any promise was held out by the Government or on the basis of such a promise how the petitioners changed their positions to their disadvantage.

        [Para 10.4]