Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sattwik Majumdar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 August, 2023
186
11.08.2023
ssi
Ct 238 WPA 29168 of 2022
Sattwik Majumdar
-vs-
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Samim Ahammed
Mr. Arka Maiti
Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin
... for the petitioner
Mr. Raj Mohan Chattoraj
Ms. Laila Khatun
Mr. Sourav Mondal
..for the respondent nos. 5 & 6
Mr. D. N. Maiti
Mr. S. Sarkar
...for the respondent no.4
Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is
taken on record.
The present writ petition centers around the
petitioner's pursuit of admission to the MBBS course at
Jagannath Gupta Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital,
Budge Budge, a private medical college. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner obtained a rank of 49634 in NEET (UG)
for the year 2022 and he was allowed to participate in
physical stray vacancy round of counselling. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that due to non-cooperation on
the part of the said medical college coupled with some
technical difficulties, he was prevented from depositing the
required fees within the time schedule as specified in the
notification dated 22.12.2022. The date of physical stray
vacancy round was 23.12.2022, and a candidate was
required to settle his fees by 4 PM on that very date.
In paragraph nos.5 to 12 of the writ petition, the
petitioner provides a comprehensive account of the non-
cooperation of the college and the challenges encountered by
him in making the payment within the said stipulated time.
The petitioner in the writ petition does not, however, deny
that the relevant college made an offer to the petitioner to
make the payment well in advance of the specified 4 PM
deadline.
The mode of payment involved options such as a
demand draft, RTGS or NEFT. It remains unclear that how
the petitioner's father was prevented from making the
payment through RTGS or NEFT, especially when the bank
account details of the college were made available on the
website of the college.
The petitioner contends that due to some
discrepancies in the procedure for stray vacancy round of
counselling, he has been deprived of his legitimate right to
be admitted to the medical course.
The procedural protocol was same for all participants.
Therefore, there was no basis to claim that the petitioner
was treated differently or undue bias on the part of either
the college or the counselling authority. If the petitioner
could not make the payment through RTGS or NEFT due to
some technical complications on the website of the
petitioner's bank, the medical college could not be held
accountable for that.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
relies upon a judgment reported at (2020) 17 SCC 465 (S.
Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh). Placing
reliance upon paragraph nos.12 and 13 thereof, it has been
contended that despite there being no fault on the part of the
petitioner, the petitioner who has approached this Court
within a reasonable period of time, should be accommodated
either by creating an additional seat or by way of
accommodating him in the next academic session.
The facts and context of this case do not warrant such
rare and exceptional exercise cases by this Court.
I also find substance in the submission made on
behalf of the college that it was open for the petitioner to
avail the opportunity to participate in the additional physical
stray vacancy round of counselling held on 28.12.2022. It
appears that the petitioner was not diligent enough in
securing his admission at the medical college within the time
period stipulated in the notification dated 22.12.2022.
In that view of the matter, it is untenable to implicate
any of the respondent authorities for negligence,
discriminatory treatment or unfair conduct towards the
petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition, WPA 29168 of 2022 is
found to be meritless and is dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
