Bombay High Court
Devendra vs The Ministry Of Human Resource on 19 October, 2013
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, R.V. Ghuge
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 6382 of 2013
Devendra s/o. Nilkanth Deshmukh,
Age : 19 years,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Sairaj Hospital, Devi Road,
Barad, Taluka : Mudkhed,
District : Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The Ministry of Human Resource
Development,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhavan, Delhi,
Through Secretary.
2. The Central Seat Allocation Board,
Through its Chairman,
Mr. Sunilkumar Sarangi,
Director, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, Odisha - 769 008.
3. Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology,
Nagpur, South Ambazari Road,
Nagpur - 440 010, Maharashtra,
Through Chairman - UG Admissions-2013,
Mr. S.B. Dhok, Associate Professor,
Electronics Engineering Department. .. Respondents.
.........................
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:28:15 :::
(2)
Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for
respondent no.1.
Mr. H.D. Marathe, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3.
..........................
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Date of reserving the
ig judgment : 8th October 2013.
Date of pronouncing the
judgment : 19th October 2013
JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :
1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.V. Ghatge for the petitioner, learned ASGI
Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. H.D. Marathe for
respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
3. Petitioner, a student seeking admission to first year of
Bachelor of Engineering course, has approached this Court with a
grievance that he was not allotted any seat in second round on 16-7-2013
and he was also not permitted to participate in further rounds thereafter. It
is not in dispute, that he belongs to O.B.C. category and in JEE-Main
(AIEEE) conducted by respondent no.2 / Board, he scored 146.30 marks
and his All India rank was accordingly 37797. Respondent no.3 /
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, was reporting
centre for him.
4. First round of seat allotment was conducted on or about
10-7-2013 and second round list was published on 16-7-2013. Petitioner
claims that he logged in on that day and found that no seat was allotted to
him. Petitioner mentions that then there was a notice on website which
declared that there was serious merit violation. Third round was to be
undertaken though original scheme contemplated only two rounds. Third
round was conducted on or about 23-7-2013 and petitioner again
attempted to verify whether he was allotted any seat in that round.
However, he could not log in. He, therefore, went to Nagpur on
24-7-2013. According to him, respondent no.3 also attempted to log in on
24-7-2013, but could not succeed. They advised him to wait and on
25-7-2013, he again contacted office of respondent no.2. Respondent no.
2's office informed him that he was selected for second round and as he
did not report for admission within prescribed time, he could not have
been considered for third round. He was also not eligible to participate in
spot round. Petitioner made representation immediately and on the next
day i.e. 26-7-2013, again he made his grievance through E-mail and fax,
but it was not considered. On 27-7-2013, spot round was completed.
Petitioner found that as per course-wise closing rank list of second round,
students at Serial Nos. 82, 120, 124, 128 and 1356 were allotted seats in
colleges placed at Serial Nos. 90, 96, 95, 94 and 80, respectively, in his
choice by the petitioner. These students belong to OBC and are less
meritorious. Third round again revealed that students at Serial Nos. 163,
202,208 and 213 have been admitted to colleges chosen by the petitioner
at Serial Nos. 90, 96, 95 and 94, respectively. Closing rank list reveals
Serial No. 1642 where a candidate at rank 36857 has been admitted, while
in list of second round, at Serial No. 1356, earlier mentioned, admission of
a student at rank 39930. Contention of Adv. Ghatge for the petitioner is,
these instances sufficiently demonstrate merit violation.
5. Respondent nos.2 and 3 filed their reply affidavit on
19-9-2013. In that reply affidavit, they have denied any merit violation.
they also submit that the petitioner could not log in on 16-7-2013, because
he was attempting to do so through an unauthorized agent and, therefore,
failed to claim seat allotted to him in second round. As per Clause 2.3 of
Information Brochure, he was rightly not considered in subsequent rounds.
They have submitted that in second round seat allocation, 6349 candidates
were allocated and 874 candidates from Maharashtra were allotted seats in
that round. Out of them, 638 candidates reported. It is further submitted
that nearly 4000 candidates had reported to nearest reporting centre for
document verification during second round and there was no problem with
C-DAC server as candidates all over country could see their result at the
same given time and there was no complaint by anybody even about slight
malfunction. Adv. Mr. Marathe in this background, submits that the fault
lies with the petitioner.
6. After hearing respective Counsel on 21st September 2013, we
passed following order :-
"1. Matter was heard initially in first
session and thereafter in second session.
2. The petitioner has specifically
contended that on 16th July 2013, he could login
and at that juncture, he was not given admission in
any college. Later on, he could find out that
persons, who have scored less marks than him, have
been given admission to colleges which were
already preferred and submitted in his choice form.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for
respondent nos.2 and 3 has relied upon reply
affidavit and particularly, a print out of the monitor,
to urge that on 16th July 2013, the petitioner was
admitted in institute at choice number 95.
4. Because of some doubts expressed in
relation to this print out, matter was required to be
kept back. Upon instructions, in second half,
learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 urged
that though that data is not now available, it is still
stored at head office of respondent no.2 at Raurkela
and if the petitioner logs in there, he can still view
said data.
5. Adv. Mr. Ghatge for the petitioner has
urged that the facts on record indicate otherwise.
According to him, if the petitioner was given
admission against choice number 95 on 16th July
2013, the students who have scored marks less than
the petitioner, could not have given admission on
that day only, in institutes preferred at earlier
numbers i.e. above choice number 95 by the
petitioner. He submits that the admissions given to
less meritorious students than the petitioner, in
institutes preferred by the petitioner, itself is
sufficient to discard the said print out.
6. By way of abundant precaution, he also
submitted that because of the problem felt in on line
process, the Central Government had taken a
decision and seats have been increased. He submits
that the petitioner is not interested in blaming
anybody, if his merit is still recognised and if he is
given admission in a college according to his merit
and preference of choice.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.2
and 3 submits that he will try to obtain further
instructions on the status of print out, as also about
availability of additional seats.
8. Place the matter for further
consideration on 7th October 2013. "
7. Accordingly, additional affidavit has been filed by respondent
no.3 on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 on 4-10-2013, by Director of
respondent no.3. He has in brief explained the admission procedure,
difference between allocation of seat and admission, the screens which
petitioner could have been viewed on 16-7-2013, had he logged in and
affirmed that print-outs given to this Court contain authentication code
which is unique code generated for each allotment status. It is submitted
by Adv. Mr. Marathe, that mention of this code in case of the petitioner
sufficiently proves that in second round he was allotted seat. He has
further stated that there are no merit violations and petitioner cannot
confuse his State overall rank (3275) or category rank (8100) with All
India overall rank (37797). It is further pointed out that admission process
has been finalized in July 2013 and classes have started thereafter and
students have appeared for first session examination. Hence, granting
admission at this stage would not be possible and legally permissible.
8. In this situation, only question before this Court is, whether
petitioner had logged in on 16-7-2013 and found that no seat was allotted
to him. The first document made available in this respect by petitioner is
his representation dated 25-7-2013. In that representation, petitioner does
not mention that he was not given any seat allocation in second round and,
therefore, he should have been considered in third round. The
representation shows introduction of subject by him as "Deshmukh second
round does not attended". He has further stated that when he checked
allotment, there was a problem. He also mentions that he was informed
that seat was allotted to him in second round and makes a request for
participation in third round. Third round was obviously over before said
date. On 26-7-2013, he has reiterated same grievance. His messages sent
on 25th July 2013 and 26th July 2013 do not mention grievance about
injustice as projected before us in oral arguments. On the contrary, in
representation addressed to Chairman / respondent no.2, undated and at
page 149, he has mentioned that he could not attend second round.
9. He has also annexed three transaction reports dated 25th July
2013, 26th July 2013 and 28th July 2013, which apparently are in relation
to messages sent. No print out of screen allegedly viewed by him on
16-7-2013, in which there was no seat allocation to him, has been
produced.
10. Petitioner nowhere, therefore, complains to respondent no.2
or respondent no.3 of non-allocation of seat to him in second round on
16-7-2013 or then about supersession of his claim by admitting students
lower in merit on that day. There are no arguments and counter to deny
the relevance and importance of the authentication code. If petitioner was
deliberately overlooked and students below him in merit list were
allocated seats on 16-7-2013, he could have definitely made that grievance
as it would have been a strong ground to claim participation in third round
or spot round. Petitioner has attempted to demonstrate admissions of less
meritorious students on print outs which have been taken after the round
was over. If petitioner did not report and if some other candidates also did
not report, candidates below such absent students are entitled to get
admission in their place. That by itself is not sufficient to infer any merit
violation. Representation by petitioner shows his inability to log on
16-7-2013 and arguments as advanced are by way of afterthought and only
due to news item of merit violation. No merit violation or system failure
has been even demonstrated to this Court.
11. In this situation, we are satisfied that there is no merit
violation, at least, qua present petitioner. We, therefore, accept additional
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Petition is
misconceived. Same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )
JUDGE JUDGE
................................
bgp/writ6382
