Pushpa Sharma vs University Of Delhi & Another
1998 Latest Caselaw 151 Del

ORDER

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is against the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request for transfer from Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital to Post-Graduate Degree course in Dermatology in Lay Hardinge Medical College.

2. According to the petitioner she applied for admission to various Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses in Medicine in the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi in 1997. She appeared in the common written screening test conducted on 15.2.97 and secured Rank No. 161. She offered the choice for the Post-Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology. However she could not be given admission in view of her low rank. The last candidate who was accommodated against the last seat available in Lady Hardinge Medical College was one Dr. Sushma Gupta who had secured Rank No. 52 in the written screening test. On being informed that no seat was available for the petitioner in the Post-Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology, the petitioner opted for the Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology and she was accordingly given admission to the Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. In between the said Dr. Sushma Gupta (Rank No. 52) and the petitioner (Rank No. 161) no other candidate had offered the choice for the Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology. She joined the course on 1st May, 1997. Since then the petitioner is continuing her studies in the Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital. In the meanwhile the last candidate from the merit list who was given admission in the last seat in the Post-Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology tendered her resignation on 1st September, 1997 and vacated the seat in the Lady Hardinge Medical College. On coming to know about the vacancy caused by the resignation of Dr. Sushma Gupta, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 requesting to accommodate her against the vacant seat. In her representation the petitioner had pointed out that she was already doing the first year course of the Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital and that she was the only candidate entitled to be accommodated against the vacant seat caused in the Post-Graduate Degree course in Dermatology. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the first year House Job period under the Diploma Course in Dermatology was the same as the first year of the Post Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology and that in case the petitioner was accommodated or transferred to the post-Graduate Degree Course there would not be any adverse effect on the duration and quality of the course and that there would not be any chain reaction of vacant seat/transfer. However, the said representation dated 3.10.97 of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent. As per Annexure P6 communication dated 13.10.97 from the second respondent Assistant Registrar (Medical) the petitioner was informed that once a candidate joined the allotted subject and institution, he/she would not be entitled to seek any change of subject or institution and therefore the petitioner's request for change of course from DVD to MD Course in Dermatology could not be acceded to. Aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's request for transfer from Diploma Course to Degree Course this writ petition has been filed praying for quashing Annexure P6 letter dated 13.10.97 and for directing the respondents to immediately accommodate the petitioner against the vacant seat in Post-Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology in Lady Hardinge Medical College.

3. According to the petitioner the Post-Graduate Degree course is of three years and the Post-Graduate Diploma Course is of two years. In both courses, first year study consists of House Job which is common to both courses. As such the transfer of a candidate from the Diploma Course to the Degree Course during the first year will not pose any hurdle and technical problem regarding the studies. Hence in case a vacant seat occurs during the first year of the degree course a student of the Diploma Course in the same subject can very well be accommodated against the said vacant seat. It is also contended that by such transfer of a student from the Diploma Course to the Degree Course in the same subject there will not be any adverse effect on the total duration and quality of the degree course. It is further contended that such a transfer is not hit or affected by the prohibition regarding transfer stipulated in the Prospectus. According to the petitioner such a situation is not at all covered by the provisions in the Prospectus. It is further contended that refusal to allow such transfer would be against public interest in as much as a vacant seat in the degree course will continue for three years and more public funds will be wasted. If the transfer is allowed the resultant vacant seat in the Diploma Course will continue only for two years wasting only less public funds. According to the petitioner, in the impugned communication the respondents have merely reiterated the general conditions applicable to the change of subjects/institutions without looking at and examining the situation in hand on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and hence the rejection of the petitioner's request was in a mechanical manner.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the request of the petitioner for transfer from Post Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital to Post Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology in Lady Hardinge Medical College cannot be permitted in view of the procedure for admission and assignment of institutions laid down in the Bulletin of Information issued by the University of Delhi (Annexure-P1). It is pointed out that as per the said procedure when a candidate appears before the Post Graduate Admission Committee for counselling he will be informed of the available seats and institutions in which the courses are available. From amongst the subjects and institutions available at the time of his counselling, he will be entitled to select only one subject and one institution. He will be allotted to the institution and subject selected by him. Once a candidate joins the allotted subject and institution he will not be entitled to seek any change of subject or institution. If any seat falls vacant in any subject in any institution during the course of counselling or thereafter the same will be filled up in the next/subsequent counselling, if any, from the waiting list strictly in order of merit. While filling up vacant seats on account of drop outs or surrender of seats, candidates who have already joined the allotted subject and institutions will not be considered and only candidates in the waiting list will be considered. According to the respondents the vacancy that has arisen in the Lady Hardinge Medical College in the Post Graduate Degree Course due to the resignation of Dr. Sushma Gupta is a vacancy on account of drop out. Since the petitioner has already joined the allotted subject (Post Graduate Diploma in Dermatology) and the institution (Safdarjung Hospital) she cannot be considered for filling up such vacancy on account of drop out. If at all the vacancy is to be filled up only candidates in the waiting list can be considered. It is also pointed out that as provided in Annexure-P1 Bulletin of Information all admissions were closed on 1-7-1997. According to the respondents vacancy after 1-7-1997 cannot be filled up by way of fresh admission or transfer in view of the direction of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to close the admissions within two months of commencement of the course. The course commenced on 2-5-1997 and hence admissions had to be closed on 1-7-1997.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that there is no provision for transfer of a student from Diploma Course in one institution to Degree Course in another institution. Therefore the petitioner has no claim or right for admission in the Degree Course in Lady Hardinge Medical College by transfer from the Diploma Course in Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner can claim admission in the Degree Course in Lady Hardinge Medical College only in accordance with the procedure for admission laid down in Annexure-P1 Bulletin of Information. It is clearly provided in paragraph V of the Bulletin of Information dealing with the procedure for admission and assignment of institutions that from amongst the subjects and institutions available at the time of counselling a candidate would be entitled to select only one subject and one institution and that he would be allotted to the said subject and to the said institution. It is also provided that once a candidate joins the allotted subject and institution he will not be entitled to seek any change of subject or institution. It is further provided that if any seat falls vacant in any subject in any institution during the course of counselling or thereafter the same would be filled up in the next/subsequent counselling, if any, from the waiting list strictly in order of merit. It is also stipulated that while filling up vacant seats on account of drop out or surrender of seats the candidates who have already joined the allotted subject and institution will not be considered and only candidates in the waiting list will be considered. Since the petitioner had already joined Post Graduate Diploma Course in Dermatology in Safdarjung Hospital as per the allotment made on the basis of her choice, her name did not continue thereafter in the waiting list for future considerations. Hence the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for admission to any further vacancy in Post Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology in Lady Hardinge Medical College.

6. It may also be mentioned that the rank number of the last candidate admitted to the Post Graduate Degree Course in Lady Hardinge Medical College was 52 while the rank number of the petitioner was 161. Even if the petitioner is to be considered for the drop out vacancy of Dr. Sushma Gupta, the claims of candidates from rank number 53 to rank number 161 in the merit list will have to be considered. It cannot be done without recounselling. It is neither feasible nor desirable to reopen the process of admission by conducting recounselling at this belated stage.

7. As pointed out by the respondents it is necessary to adhere to the time schedule regarding admission to the course. In view of the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter. The respondents are also bound to adhere to the time schedule. As per the time schedule mentioned in the Bulletin of Information the course commenced on 2-5-1997 and the admissions were closed on 1-7-1997. Notwithstanding the availability of a vacant seat ordinarily the respondents are not bound to fill up such vacant seat after 1-7-1997. It is significant that the vacancy in this case arose not on account of non-joining or surrender of the seat but due to the resignation of the student on 1-9-1997 after joining the course on 2-5-1997.

8. The contention of the petitioner that the studies in the first year of the Diploma Course and the studies in the first year of Degree Course are the same is not relevant since the petitioner has no right for admission in the Degree Course and since the petitioner's name does not continue in the waiting list for future considerations and since the respondents are not bound to make admissions after 1-7-1997.

9. I am not impressed by the argument of the petitioner that no prejudice will be caused to any body if she is accommodated against the vacant seat and that it is against public interest to waste a seat in the Degree Course. The question is not one of prejudice or of wasting the seat. The question is whether the petitioner has an enforceable legal right for admission against the vacant seat and whether there is need for strict adherence to the rules governing admissions. As already found the petitioner has no legal right for admission to the vacant seat. In my view, it is necessary in public interest that the rules governing admissions are strictly followed and that they are not violated or bent for helping or favouring an individual.

10. Since the petitioner has no enforceable legal right for admission to the Post Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology in Lady Hardinge Medical College and since the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request was strictly in accordance with the rules governing admissions, I do not find any justification for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to admit the petitioner to the Post Graduate Degree Course in Dermatology in Lady Hardinge Medical College at this belated stage. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2581/93 produced as Annexure P-7, I am not persuaded by the said judgment to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in this case. The said judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was rendered on the facts of the particular case before that Court. In that case the vacant seat arose due to the non joining of a candidate to whom the seat was last offered. In the case before me, the vacant seat arose due to the dropping out of a candidate four months after joining the course. From Annexure P-7 judgment it would appear that the petitioner therein was the next candidate in the merit list after the candidate to whom the seat was last offered. At any rate, the question whether there were candidates with higher ranks and whether their claims should be considered before considering the claim of the petitioner was not considered in the said judgment. But in the case before me as pointed out earlier there are 108 candidates above the petitioner and below Dr. Sushma Gupta in the merit list and their claims will have to be considered before considering the claim of the petitioner. Moreover the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out in several judgments that the mere existence or availability of vacant seats will not justify direction by the court to grant admission ignoring the rules governing admission.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.