Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
S. Uma – Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sub-Regional Office, Panchdeep Bhavan, Coimbatore & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17108 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 16669 of 2019
Decided On : 02-07-2019
For the Petitioner:T.D. Selvam Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.P. Srinivasan, Advocate, B. Sudhirkumar, Central Government Standing Counsel
Adherence to specified application timelines is crucial, and failure to apply for necessary certificates within the stipulated period may preclude seeking judicial intervention.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Admission under Insured Persons Quota - ESIC Act, 1948 - Section 4.5 of Admission Policy - NEET Examination - Natural Justice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's daughter, Ms. S.Roshini, sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the issuance of a 'Ward of Insured Person Certificate' for her admission to ESI Medical College for UG Courses under the Insured Persons Quota. The petitioner's contention was that the online application for the certificate closed before the NEET result was published, rendering her daughter ineligible for the quota.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's daughter failed to apply for the Insured Persons Certificate before the specified deadline, and therefore, could not seek the court's intervention to extend the date. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's daughter was entitled to the Insured Persons Quota for admission to ESI Medical College, given the closure of the online application for the 'Ward of Insured Person Certificate' before the NEET result was published.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's daughter's failure to apply for the Insured Persons Certificate before the specified deadline precluded her from seeking relief through the writ petition. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified application timelines and found no grounds to extend the deadline.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the “Ward of Insured Person Certificate” to the petitioner’s daughter Ms.S.Roshini for admission in ESI Medical College for UG Courses (MBBS/BDS) under the Insured Persons Quota for the Academic Session 2019-2020 based on application No.ESIC004704 submitted by the petitioner’s daughter S.Roshini and consequently direct the second respondent and third respondent to include the petitioner’s daughter S.Roshini, NEET Registration No.41020424 in the merit list for the said quota considering the fact that the petitioner’s daughter S.Roshini is a Ward of Insured Person and has passed the NEET-2019 with a score of 424 out of 720 marks.)
1. Ms. S.Roshini, who is the daughter of the writ petitioner is one of the several thousand aspirants to join MBBS course. Her score in the qualifying examination is 1109/1200. She has secured 424/720 marks in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as “the NEET”) examination held in 2019. The petitioner being an employee in M/s.Hitwinhealth Care Limited at Coimbatore and ESIC benefit Insurance member, her daughter S.Roshini is eligible for admission in MBBS/BDS under ESI insured persons (IPs) quota.
2. The second respondent is the authority for allotment of seats based on merit cum preference of institution, through a centralised on-line counselling for the “Insured persons quota”. When the petitioner’s daughter applied online through the ESI Portal under application No. ESIC004704, she was not able to generate Ward of Insured Certificate. When she approached the second respondent, in person, she came to know that, the student link for applying online for the Ward of Insured Person Certificate was closed by 28/05/2019, which is much before the NEET result published on 05/06/2019.
3. The admission policy for UG (MBBS/BDS) admission for Academic session 2019-2020 envisages that candidate seeking admission under “Insured persons (IPs) Quota” will have to fulfil minimum eligibility criteria for admission and should submit ‘Ward of Insured Person’ Certificate issued by competent/designated authority for the purpose by ESIC.
4. The petitioner’s daughter Roshini had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for admission of MBBS course by securing 1109 marks out of 1200 in XII Examination. To claim quota under ESI Insured person, she should submit Ward of Insured Person Certificate. For applying
‘Ward of Insured Person’ Certificate, clause 4.5 of the Policy - for admission to MBBS/BDS course mandates after qualifying in centralised entrance test (NEET) candidates can respond to the advertisement by the ESIC and apply for admission under the Insured Persons (IPs) Quota.
5. The result of NEET examination was published on 05/06/2019. The petitioner daughter came to know that she is qualified in the centralised entrance test (NEET). So, she applied for admission through online on 10/06/2019. To be considered under the Ward of Insured persons quota, she applied for Ward of Insured Person Certificate, through online. She was not able to generate the certificate since, the last date for applying of Ward of Insured person closed on 28/05/2019 itself, even before the publication of NEET result.
6. Therefore, the petitioner contends that, when the Policy of the respondent under clause 4.5 mandates qualification in the centralised entrance test (NEET) is essential to get Insured Persons Certificate, even before the declaration of NEET result, the respondents have stopped on-line issuance of ‘Ward of Insured Person’ certificate. This is unreasonable and against the principle of natural justice.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the instruction of the first respondent, submitted that, the averments made in the affidavit by the petitioner are misleading and contrary to the terms of the notification. The petitioner’s contention that
