Allahabad High Court
Jaya Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10166 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jaya Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Pratap Mishra,Ajeet Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hridai Narain Pandey,Rohit Dwivedi,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Brijesh Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the University.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioner was fairly covered under the PwD category and her allotment to the University i.e. Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Science, SAFAI, Etawah for admission to MBBS course which did not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.
Having examined the legality of the order passed by the Counseling Committee, on a reference made by the University to verify the standard of physical disability, we find that whatever exercise was undertaken by the State did not legally crystalize the rights of the petitioner in the manner in which it has been decided by the Committee and the Director General of Medical Education & Training. Petitioner who had participated in the selection in the NEET-2020 was thus, entitled to be continued for education against MBBS course in the University pursuant to the allotment order dated 16th December, 2020. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had joined pursuant thereof, but for the verification of her category i.e. Physically Disabled (PwD), in erroneous manner the education came to be disrupted and she was prevented to pursue the course.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right of equality to all the participating candidates. The other candidates having been declared successful, have duly been granted admission but while this benefit was applicable to the petitioner as well, she was denied the same and thereby loss of one year studies was caused.
We uphold the petitioner's rights for pursuing the MBBS course pursuant to the allotment order dated 16th December, 2020. For all consequences, inclusive of compensation for the reason that the petitioner's rights for pursuing the education has been disrupted for no valid reason and the justification pleaded by the State Government, we do not find is based on plausible reason.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Case of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors passed in Civil Appeal No.1081 of 2017, has argued that the candidature of the petitioner in view of her rights have been found infringed entitles her for restitution of the claim and the Apex Court in this regard has permitted the accommodation of such candidates against a future vacancy in the institution where a candidate otherwise was entitled to be allotted a seat.
The petitioner since was allotted a seat in the University, therefore, we hereby provide that the State Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India shall pass necessary orders to accommodate the petitioner's candidature against the MBBS course during the Academic Session 2022-23, of which the counseling is stated to have concluded recently on 7th May, 2022, however, the academic session is to begin w.e.f. 1st July 2022. This direction is issued looking to the exceptional circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner had already joined her education, but was prevented to pursue the same under the circumstances regarding which we have made our observation hereinabove.
Insofar as the compensation for preventing the petitioner from pursuing her education is concerned, Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the illegality which has crept in while passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, the same was done under some misconceived notions and misunderstanding of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India. We hereby set aside the decision so taken and the consequential order as well. For passing the order we, owing a duty to the cause of justice, simply wish to put on record that in the normal course the petitioner was rightly classified as a physically disabled candidate by the competent authority on being found about 40% visually impaired. The notified institution found the petitioner's visual impairment to the extent of 30% with the aid of assistive device. Thus both the criterion for horizontal reservation as well as eligibility for admission to medical course are met with. The eligibility for reservation and suitability for admission with the aid of assistive device are two different criterion which the petitioner has met with as per law.
At this stage, it is prayed by the State that the Court may not award compensation in the present case where the State having realized the mistake shall make an earnest effort to accommodate the petitioner's candidature and restitute the claim for admission to MBBS course in terms of the allotment already made.
Having regard to the assurance as above, we take a lenient view and exempt the imposition of compensation and direct the opposite parties to pass necessary orders for restitution of the petitioner's claim for her education in the University from the effective date of Academic Session 2022-23 i.e. 1st July, 2022.
In the event of non compliance of this order, we leave it open for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court so that necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
This judgment may not be treated to be precedent for the reason that the case at hand pertains to a physically disabled candidate.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
D. Tamang
