SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Ori) 363

2004 (II) OLR (SC) — 532
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND G. P. MATHUR AND P. P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.
Dolly Chhanda...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, JEE and others...Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6506 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21153/2003)
Decided on 5th October, 2004.

Advocates:
For Appellant:Mr. Amarendra Bal, Mr. Rakesh Uttamchadra Upadhyay
For Respondents:Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Ms. Moushumi Gahlot

Headnote:ADMISSION - MBBS Course - Appellant rank No. 20 in the JEE-2003 Medical Stream in the reserved MI category - Appellant’s candidature was rejected on the ground that at the time of counselling she failed to produce the certificate to show that she belongs to a reserved category - In order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced - Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof - Not proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure - Every infraction of the rule relating to submis¬sion of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature - Appellant should not be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling - Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted - View taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal - Direc¬tion issued.

       (Paras - 5 to 11)

JUDGMENT

G. P. MATHUR, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 of High Court of Orissa by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuing a direction to the respondents to admit her in MBBS course was summarily dismissed.

3. The appellant passed 10+2 (Science) Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, in First Class. As she was desirous of joining a medical course, she appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 (for short ‘JEE-2003’) under the reserved MI category being daughter of an ex-serviceman - NK Manoranjan Chhanda who was discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of Information Brochure of JEE-2003 certain percentage of seats are reserved for children/widows of personnel of armed/paramilitary forces of Orissa, killed/disabled in action during war or peace time operation. Her rank in the JEE-2003 in the reserved MI category in the medical stream was 20 and accord¬ingly she was called for counselling for admission to a medical college on 7.7.2003. During the course of scrutiny of papers it was revealed that in the certificate dated 29.6.2003 given to her father by the Zilla Sainik Board in Column No. 3 which pertained to “Disabled/killed in war/hostilities” the words “not eligible” were written. Since the aforesaid certificate did not satisfy the requirement of the reserved MI category, her candidature was rejected. The candidates who had secured ranks at 24 and 26 in the aforesaid category were given admission. She produced the disability certificate which was issued to her father by the army authorities, but in view of requirement of Clause 2.1.4 of the Information Brochure the same was not accepted. The appellant’s father then requested the Zilla Sainik Board, Sambalpur to recti¬fy the mistake, which issued a fresh certificate on 16.7.2003 which mentioned “Permanently Disabled” in Column No. 3. The appel¬lant then again approached respondent No. 1 with the aforesaid correct certificate, but no action was taken. On coming to know that another round of counselling had been fixed for 29.10.2003 on account of increase in seat, the appellant went to the con¬cerned centre and requested for being given admission on the basis of the fresh certificate issued by the Zilla Sainik Board, which certified that her father had been discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent disability. The candidates who had secured rank from 27 to 30 in the MI category were called for counselling, but the appellant’s candidature was not considered. The case of the appellant thus is that it was the Zilla Sainik Board which had committed the mistake in not issuing a correct certificate and the said mistake having been was rectified in the second certificate issued on 16.7.2003, she was entitled for admission in a medical college as candidates securing lower ranks had already been admitted.

4. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that at the time of the counselling on 7.7.2003 the certificate furnished by the appel¬lant did not bear any testimony that her father being a personnel of armed/paramilitary forces of Orissa had been disabled in action and consequently in terms of Clause 2.1.4 of the Informa¬tion Brochure her claim that she belongs to the reserved MI cate¬gory had not been established.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the appellant had secured rank at serial No. 20 in the medical stream in the JEE-2003 in the reserved MI category. The stand taken is that as in the certifi¬cate produced by the appellant at the time of counselling on 7.7.2003, it was not mentioned that her father was a disabled personnel of the armed/paramilitary forces, her candidature was rejected. It is further pleaded that since her candidature was rejected due to her ineligibility, she









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top