Back
1980 Supreme(Goa) 5
Goa High Court
K. M. MISHRA, ADDL. J.C.
Gladson Menino Vaz and another - Appellant
Versus
Dean, Goa Medical College, Panaji - Respondents
Special Civil Appln. (Writ Petn.) No. 134 of 1979
Decided On : 30 April 1980
S.K. Kakodkar, for Petitioners; J. Dias, Govt. Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The court held that the time limit for nomination under Category III was peremptory and that the departure from the norms laid down by the college prospectus violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be applied against the Government in this case.
Headnote:
COLLEGE PROSPECTUS - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE - TIME LIMIT FOR NOMINATION - DEPARTURE FROM NORMS LAID DOWN BY PROSPECTUS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the admission of students to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course at Goa Medical College, Panaji. The intake capacity of the college was sixty, with three seats reserved under Category III for the Government of India. The Government of India allotted these seats to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of External Affairs, and Ministry of Education. The issue arose due to the nomination of a candidate by the Ministry of External Affairs after the stipulated deadline of 15th August 1979.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the time limit for nomination under Category III was peremptory and that the seat to which the candidate was nominated was no longer available under Category III on the date of his nomination, having reverted to Category I (unreserved) on 16th August 1979. The court further held that the action of the respondents in entertaining the nomination after the deadline was illegal and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the time limit for nomination under Category III was peremptory? 2. Whether the departure from the norms laid down by the college prospectus violated Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be applied against the Government in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the provisions of the college prospectus, which stated that no further extension would be considered beyond 15th August 1979 for nominations under Category III. The court held that this time limit was peremptory and that the respondents could not entertain nominations after the deadline. 2. The court held that the departure from the norms laid down by the college prospectus was arbitrary and unreasonable, and that it violated the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be applied against the Government in this case, as the prospectus contained assurances and representations to the public regarding the admission process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the admission of the candidate who was nominated after the deadline. However, considering the hardship that might be caused to the candidate, the court directed the respondents to take all possible steps to admit the petitioner, if necessary, by creating an additional seat or admitting him in the next session.
ORDER :- This Rule involves interpretation of paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Goa Medical College Prospectus (1979-89) which regulate admissions to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course at Goa Medical College, Panaji. The intake capacity of the Goa Medical College is sixty, and distributed among three categories. Three seats under Category III are placed at the disposal of the Government of India.
2. The following facts are not in dispute. The three seats reserved under Category III were allotted by the Government of India, one each to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Education, and that the said agencies forwarded their nominations as follows :-
(1) DGHS :
Name of the candidate
Nominated by
Shri Jawindar Singh Sabharwal telegram dated 3-8-1979.
Shri Rajneesh Satish Jain (in place of telegram dated 29-8-1979.
Jawindar Singh Sabharwal because
Sabharwal was found already admitted
under category II).
(2) Ministry of External Affairs :
Shri Victor Olawele Olangudeye letter dated 4-8-1979.
Shri Mahmood Hassan Al-Azzeh (in the telegram dated 27-9-1979.
seat transferred by the Ministry of Education)
(3) Ministry of Education:
Shri Narendra Kumar of Fiji (because letter dated 16-8-1979.
this candidate declined to accept the
seat, the Ministry of Education transferred
the seat allotted to it to the Ministry of
External Affairs - see under Ministry of
External Affairs),
Shri Victor Olawele Olangudeye, respondent No. 3, was admitted on 29-8-1979 and respondent No. 4 Shri Mahmood Hassan Al-Azzeh was admitted on 29-10-1979 under Category III. The admission of Victor is not impeached because the nomination made by the Ministry of External Affairs is dated 4-8-1979. It is only the admission of respondent No. 4 which is challenged. Respondent No. 4 has been admittedly nominated by the Ministry of External Affairs by telegram dated 27-9-1979 in the seat transferred to it by the Ministry of Education by telegram of 27-9-1979. The Ministry of Education transferred the seat allotted to it to the Ministry of External Affairs because Shri Narendra Kumar of Fiji nominated by its letter dated 16-8-1979 had declined to accept the seat.
3. The nomination of Shri Narendra Kumar of Fiji under Category No. III made by the Ministry of Education is said to be illegal having been made after 15-8-1979. The Dean, Goa Medical College (respondent No. 1) ought not to have entertained it. The Ministry of External Affairs could not therefore acquire any authority to make a second nomination in Category III in any event after 15-8-1979. The nomination of Respondent No. 4 made by the Ministry of External Affairs by telegram dated 27-9-1979 patently contravenes paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the College Prospectus.
4. On the aforesaid allegations the petitioners seek appropriate writ quashing the admission granted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 4 to the first year M.B.B.S. course of the Goa Medical College (1979-80) under Category III and directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith admit the first petitioner to the aforesaid course under Category I (unreserved).
5. Respondent No. 1 in his returns has submitted that paragraph 3.3 of the prospectus on which the petitioner No. 1 has based his claim is administrative direction and does not create any justiciable right in any person. In any event it is nowhere stated in the said prospectus that if no nomination is received under Category III before 15th August, 1979 the right of the Central Government to nominate those seats is lost or that the said seats become vacant for admission to other candidates on the basis of merit. The caution in the aforesaid paragraph "in any case no further extension will be considered" is purely cautionary and does not create any right in others. The Central Government who has been allotted the said three seats under Category III in its turn distributed them amongst the Ministry of Education, Ministry of External Affairs and Dire
