Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABHINAVA UPADHYA, PANKAJ BHATIA, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 31081 of 2018
Decided On : 18-12-2019
For the Petitioner:Shivendu Ojha, Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Advocate).
For the Respondent: C.S.C., M.P. Yadav, Mahendra Pratap.
Headnote:
NEET UG 2018 - Admission Dispute - Provisions of the brochure specifying for the counselling procedure - Admission to the seat in the first round of counselling - Admission denied on account of totally arbitrary consideration by the respondent authorities - Restitutionary relief granted to the petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that his admission to a medical college was cancelled due to appearing in the second round of counselling, despite no provision in the brochure for such cancellation. The petitioner sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the admission was denied to the petitioner on account of totally arbitrary consideration by the respondent authorities. The court held that the petitioner, being a meritorious student, is entitled to a restitutionary relief and should be admitted to a college where seats are vacant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cancellation of the petitioner's admission due to appearing in the second round of counselling and the arbitrary consideration by the respondent authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the brochure specifying the counselling procedure and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others to grant restitutionary relief to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted restitutionary relief to be admitted to a college where seats are vacant within 15 days, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. In the present petition, it has been alleged that for conducting National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG-2018, a brochure was published by the Director General, Medical Health and Training. The petitioner applied and appeared in the NEET UG-2018 and the Roll Number 513812113 was allotted to the petitioner. It is said that in the said test conducted by CBSE, the petitioner’s all India ranking was 10092 and the State rank was 1195. It is stated that the petitioner appeared in the first counselling and an allotment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Chairman, counselling Board (Annexure-2 to the petition), whereby the petitioner was kept in the category BCOP and was allotted the Institute Government Medical College, Azamgarh for the course of MBBS. The petitioner in terms of the said letter appeared before the Principal, Government Medical College, Azamgarh on 10.7.2018 and submitted his papers as well as deposited an amount of Rs. 31,800/- by demand draft no. 409058, which was duly received by the Principal as is perused from the receipt dated 10.7.2018 (Annexure-3 to the petition).
3. The petitioner thereafter sought an NOC to appear in the second counselling only with a view to improve and get a better Institution. The said NOC was given to the petitioner on 10.7.2018. The petitioner appeared in the second round of counselling. In the said second round of counselling, the petitioner was allotted the same Medical College i.e. Government Medical College, Azamgarh. However, in the said second allotment letter his category was mentioned as GNOP, whereas in the first allotment letter the allotted category was mentioned as BCOP. The petitioner, believing that he was allotted the same college reported for admission, but no process was conducted by the College and the petitioner was throughout under the impression that his fees and papers had already been deposited in the College in question, as such no further steps were to be taken. The petitioner, when he approached the respondent no.3, the College in question, was informed that his admission had been cancelled because the petitioner had appeared in the second counselling and as in terms of the allotment letter issued after the second round of counselling, the petitioner did not report at the allotted College on or before 18.8.2018, as such his admission had been cancelled.
4. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 28.8.2018 before the Director General, Medical Education and Training highlighting his plight, however, no action was taken but the petitioner was not allowed to continue his study. As such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition on 9th September, 2018.
5. This Court vide order dated 13.9.2018, allowed three days’ time to obtain instruction and the matter was directed to be listed on 18th September, 2018. On 18.9.2019, this Court granted time for filing of counter affidavits mainly as an statement was made before this Court that no seat is vacant, on which the petitioner can be accommodated.
6. The matter was heard on 9.12.2019.
7. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of the brochure, there is no provision or stipulation that in the event of petitioner appearing in the second round of counselling, his admission granted after the first counselling was to automatically come to an end. He has drawn our attention to the provisions of the brochure specifying for the counselling procedure, which is as under:-
**dkamflfyax izfdz;k%&
dkmaflfyax izfdz;k izFke o f}rh; pØ eas lEiUu dh tk;s
