Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 843
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. R. LAKSHMANAN
State of T.N. and Others - Appellant
Versus
M. Anita Selva Zavier and Another - Respondents
W.A. No. 683 of 1996 and C.M.P. 9823 of 1996
Decided On : 19 August 1996
The reasonableness of the decision of the nature in question can be considered by the Court in exercise of the power of Judicial Review in appropriate cases.
Headnote:
MEDICAL ADMISSION - FIXATION OF LAST DATE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS - REASONABLENESS - POST OFFICE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AGENT OF ADDRESSEE - EQUITY - ADMISSION GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had appeared for the 1995-96 entrance examination for admission to the 1st year MBBS Course, narrowly missed the admission. She appeared for an improvement examination in March 1996 to improve her marks in Physics and Chemistry. The marks cards were not supplied to the petitioner until 6-6-1996, therefore she could not send the application before 6-6-1996. She received the improvement marks card only on 6-6-1996 at 10 a.m. and sent the application on the same day at 10 a.m. by speed post, which was received by the G.P.O., Madras on 7-6-1996, but was delivered to the Selection Committee only on the next day, i.e. 8-6-1996. The last date fixed for receipt of applications was 7-6-1996.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the fixation of 7-6-1996 as the last date for receipt of applications for admission to the 1st year MBBS Course was unreasonable. The Court also held that the post office cannot be considered as the agent of the addressee, viz., the Secretary, Selection Committee. However, the Court took into account the equity of the case and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for admission.
Issues: 1. Whether it would be open to go into the question as to whether fixation of 7-6-1996 as the last date by the State Government is reasonable? 2. If answer to point (i) is in the affirmative, whether the fixation of 7-6-1996 can be considered to be reasonable? 3. If answer to point (ii) is in the negative, what relief could be granted to the petitioner/ 1st respondent herein?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reasonableness of the decision of the nature in question can be considered by the Court in exercise of the power of Judicial Review in appropriate cases. 2. The last date fixed by the State Government, whether it is reasonable or not, can be gone into by the Court in exercise of the power of Judicial Review in appropriate cases. 3. The fixation of 7-6-1996 as the last date for receipt of applications for admission to the 1st year MBBS Course was unreasonable. 4. The post office cannot be considered as the agent of the addressee, viz., the Secretary, Selection Committee.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and also the C.M.P. However, time granted for compliance by the learned single Judge was extended by one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
K. A. SWAMI, C.J.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS Courses, Director of Medical Education and Director of Government Examinations, against the order dated 17-7-1996 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing W.P. No. 7901 of 1996 and directing the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition, who are the appellants in this appeal to give the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein one seat in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in the 1st year MBBS Course, 1996-97. There is a further direction to respondents 1 to 4 to comply with the order, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that as the application sent by the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) reached the Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS Course on 8-6-1996 whereas the last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 7-6-1996, the application having been received after the last date fixed for receipt of such applications was not entitled to be considered, therefore the cover was not opened and the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for admission. It is submitted that as per the instructions given to the candidates in the Prospectus for Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Medical/ Dental/ Paramedical, 1996-97, it has been specifically stated that completed application forms with enclosures may be delivered in person or sent in the cover provided by registered post/courier service/ speed post to reach the Secretary, Selection Committee, K.M.C. Hospital Campus, Madras 600 010 before 5.00 p.m. on 3-6-1996. However, it is not in dispute that the last date fixed as 3-6-1996 was extended under the Notification dated 22-5-1976 to 7-6-1996. It is also the case of appellants the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition that as per decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Vinothkumar, R. v. Secretary, Selection Committee, Sabarmathi Hostel, K.M.C. Etc. reported in (1995) 1 Mad LW 351, the post office cannot be considered to be the agent of the Selection Committee, therefore the posting of the applications on 6-6-1996 did not ensure to the benefit of the writ petitioner and such an application could not be considered as having been received by the Selection Committee on or before 7-6-1996.
2.1. Whereas it is the case of the writ petitioner that she appeared for 1995-96 entrance examination for admission to 1st year MBBS Course, but, she narrowly missed the admission, therefore she appeared for improvement examination in March, 1996 in order to improve her marks in Physics and Chemistry, those marks were not supplied to the petitioner until 6-6-1996, therefore she could not sent the application before 6-6-1996, that she received the improvement marks card only on 6-6-1996 at 10 a.m. and sent the application on the same day at 10 a.m. by speed post, that it has been received by the G.P.O., Madras on 7-6-1996, whereas it had been delivered to the Selection Committee only on the next day, i.e. 8-6-1996. In addition to this, it is the case of the petitioner that the marks cards were not supplied, therefore a telegram was sent by her to the 4th respondent on 1-6-1996, that she sent another telegram to the 4th respondent on 1-6-1996 regarding the non-receipt of the improvement marks card and requested for extension of the last date for receipt of the applications for admission to the 1st year MBBS Course. Still, one more telegram was sent on 4-6-1996 to the 4th respondent regarding the non-receipt of the marks card. On the basis of these statements, 7-6-1976 was fixed as the last date for receipt of the applications. Whereas, the marks card, as already pointed out, was supplied only on 6-6-1996 at 9.30 a.m. It is also the case of the petitioner that the last date fixed as 7-6-1996 is itself highly arbitrary in as much as along with the application a candidate is expected to enclose all the documents, including the marks card and the
