Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4364
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mahesh Grover, Lalit Batra, JJ.
Sushma Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 23083 of 2018
Decided On : 21-11-2018
B.S. Rathee, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the University; Pritibha Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 6; Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5; Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 7
The court emphasized the importance of conducting fair and just admission processes, and cited the principles established in Chandigarh Administration case to provide exceptional reliefs to candidates in cases of gross arbitrariness.
Headnote:
Arbitrary Admission Process - MBBS/BDS Admission - Chandigarh Administration vs. Jasmine Kaur and others (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 521 - The court found the admission process to be arbitrary and in violation of the rights of the petitioner. Citing the principles established in Chandigarh Administration case, the court determined compensation to be paid to the petitioner and directed consideration for admission in the next year.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, eligible for MBBS/BDS admission under the dependent of ex-serviceman category, was denied admission despite successfully competing in the NEET examination. Less meritorious candidates were granted admission, raising concerns about the fairness of the admission process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondents' actions to be arbitrary and unfair, concluding that the admission process was not conducted in a just manner. The court determined compensation to be paid to the petitioner and directed consideration for admission in the next year.
Issues: Dispute over denial of admission to the petitioner despite eligibility and successful NEET examination results. Concerns raised about the fairness of the admission process and the admission of less meritorious candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in Chandigarh Administration vs. Jasmine Kaur and others, emphasizing the importance of not violating the last date of admission and providing exceptional reliefs to candidates in cases of gross arbitrariness in the admission process.
Final Decision: The court held the respondents' actions to be arbitrary, determined compensation to be paid to the petitioner, and directed consideration for admission in the next year.
JUDGMENT
Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) - The respondents have produced a CD of videography footage in Court which is taken on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who has been denied admission to MBBS/BDS course for the session 2018-19. The eligibility of the petitioner who belongs to dependent of ex-serviceman category is not in dispute. She has successfully competed in the NEET examination and obtained all India rank of 95850.
3. Government of Haryana issued a Policy dated 10.08.2017 wherein priority for reservation or preference to the wards of Armed Forces personnel in the matter of admission was prescribed. According to the policy, the petitioner fell in Priority-IV- Wards of disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. Priority-VI pertains to Wards of Ex-servicemen. As observed earlier, the petitioner's eligibility is not in dispute. She passed the NEET examination and she falls under Category-IV is also not in dispute.
The dispute centers around the fact that less meritorious candidates have been granted admission.
4. Mop up round counselling was held on 3.9.2018. The petitioner asserts in the writ petition that she was present on the date of counselling i.e., 3.9.2018 and was informed that only those candidates whose net score is 400 and above would be considered in the said category, although when final list was declared, the candidates much lower in merits find mention in final list. The petitioner's NEET score was 377, whereas, one Jyoti and Smarti Dalal whose NEET score was 241 and 153, respectively, got admission in Priority-IV. No satisfactory reason was given by the respondents except that the petitioner was not present on the date in question although this would raise an issue of disputed facts but the attending circumstances do suggest that the petitioner was present and vigilant in pursuing her case.
5. The respondents have stated in their reply that all the seats were filled up by 2.35 p.m. although petitioner refers to the material on record to contend that time is not indicated against each and every candidate. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that time was indicated against the candidates who have been admitted and not all the candidates who were present and considered.
6. Be that as it may, it is disturbing that the respondents have not been fair in conducting the process. They prescribed the date of mop-up round of counselling but no time schedule was prescribed to indicate within what period the process would commence and conclude. It is not their case that admissions would be made on first come first serve basis. Then how could they conclude that all seats have been filled up by 2.35 p.m.
7. Possibly, some candidates coming from far away places may have reached later than 2.30 p.m. It would not be justified to deny admission to such a candidate. The logical course should have been to wait till the time when whole process be declared closed and that they could have done by prescribing the time schedule, for the process.
8. We thus are of the opinion that the respondents have arbitrarily closed the admission at 2.35 p.m. They have raised a question that the petitioner was not present to cover up the mischief of giving admission to less meritorious candidates than the petitioner. The respondents have been unable to justify why the admissions for this category were closed at noon time and why they could not wait till evening particularly when the process continued till beyond 8 p.m. for this category as disclosed to us in Court. We thus hold the action of respondents to be wholly arbitrary and are unable to accept the plea of the petitioner not being present at the time of counselling. We have now to see what relief can be granted to the petitioner.
9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent pronouncement in Chandigarh Administration vs. Jasmine Kaur and others, (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 521 has held the last date of admis
