Dr. Raman Arora vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 598 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. Dr. Raman Arora and Deepti Lal, the petitioners in these two writ petitions, medical graduates who have done their MBBS from Goa and Maharashtra respectively in 15% All India quota, are seeking admission to Post Graduate Diploma Course (M.S./M.D) of University of Delhi under 75% quota for Delhi. Their applications have been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they do not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause III(A)(2)(i) of the prospectus issued for admission to the aforesaid course. The respondents contend that the petitioners are not eligible as they had not passed their 10th, 11th and 12th Class examinations from the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Both the petitioner plead that they are bonafide residents of Delhi but had to go out of Delhi in 15% All India quota as they could not get admission in Medical Course in Delhi. They plead that they had completed their 10+2 course from Delhi schools, but could not do their 10th from Delhi for certain compelling circumstances. It is averred that till last year the condition regarding 10th Class was not in the rules which has been added during the current year only. The petitioners submit that the rejection of their candidature is illegal, arbitrary and unjust as they are permanent and bonafide residents of Delhi having their roots in Delhi. It is submitted that till last year they were eligible to seek admission in the course in question but due to change o f the aforesaid eligibility criteria they have suddenly become ineligible. The petitioners criteria they have suddenly become ineligible. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Meenakshi Malik v. Union of India to pray that an exception be made in their cases. They also challenge the amended rule III(A)(2)(i) of prospectus.

2. On facts the petitioner Raman Arora pleads that his father is an Officer in Canara Bank and is posted on a transferable job. In 1979 his father was transferred to Delhi and the petitioner was put in a nursery school. up to 1984 the petitioner studied in a school in Delhi and thereafter from 1984 to 1986 when his father was posted to Calcutta he got his education at Calcutta and studied up to Class IV. In 1986 his father was again transferred back to Delhi and as such the petitioner also came to Delhi and joined a school where he studied up to 7th standard. His father was again transferred to Sirsa in the year 1989. Accordingly the petitioner has to leave Delhi and join a school at Sirsa where he studied up to Xth Class till 1992. The petitioner's father was transferred back to Delhi in 1992 when the petitioner joined DAV Model Sr. Secondary School, Delhi and studied there for Class and XIIth. In 1994 after clearing his 12th Class the petitioner joined Hans Raj College, Delhi as a student of BSc(General). In 1995 he was allowed a seat at Goa under All India Quota. In December 2000 he completed his MBBS. In 2001 he cleared the Entrance Test for this very Post Graduate Course but did not join. However, in January, 2002 when he applied for Entrance Test his application was rejected on the basis of the amended rule that he had not done 10th class from Delhi. He also filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of the father and averred that almost all their close relatives were residents of Delhi. It was averred that petitioners grand mother, his father's three real brothers, his fathers real sister were all having their own properties in Delhi and were residing in Delhi. It was also submitted that the petitioners father had become a member of Canara Cooperative Group Hosing Society Limited in year 1982 which allotted him a flat at Rohini in the multi storey Group Housing in the year 1989. In the service record of his father his permanent address was shown as that of Delhi only.

3. The petitioner Deepti Lal pleaded that she is a bonafide resident of Delhi and was born at Delhi itself. Her father had also born at Delhi. The petitioner's father who was born and brought up at Krishna Bazar Cloth Market, Fateh Puri, Delhi shifted to Sarasvati Vihar, New Delhi in the year 1992. As such the petitioner and her family has been all along residing at Delhi. The mother of the petitioner, who was working in the Education Department of Government of Delhi, was posted to a School at Pandav Nagar in the year 1994 and as such the petitioner was admitted to Summer-Ville School, Noida from where she passed her 10th Class examination. Pandav Nagar falls in Delhi but the school which was just across the road, was falling in U.P. However, she completed her Class XIth and XIIth from Ramjas School, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. After clearing her 12th Class examination the petitioner appeared in the entrance test conducted by the University of Delhi in the year 1996. She qualified the test but finding the course offered by CBSE a better course she took admission in SRTR Medical College, Distt. Beed, Maharashtra. Her ranking in the DPMT examination was 359. The petitioner averred that she was born and borough up at Delhi and had done her 10th Class from Noida merely on account of the posting of her school in Noida merely on account of the posting of her mother at Pandav Nagar, Delhi which was very near to her school in Noida and as such she was always a bonafide resident of Delhi. She also assailed the rejection of her admission on the basis of the changed rule and pleaded that her parents as well as she were bonafide residents of Delhi and as such she could not be denied admission under 75% quota.

4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have relied upon Dr. Parag Gupta's case to plead that the rule in question has been changed with a view to ensure that only bonafide residents of Delhi are eligible for admission under 75% quota reserved for the candidates who have done their MBBS course from Delhi or are bonafide residents of Delhi. It is also pleaded that in the case of Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana the Supreme Court did not find anything wrong with the condition relating to completion of 10th, 11th and 12th as laid down by the Government of Haryana for ascertaining domicile and as such, the petitioners cannot challenge the validity of the criteria laid down by the respondents in this regard. According to the respondents a Committee constituted by Delhi University had recommended the inclusion of Class 10th in the eligibility criteria for determining as to whether Delhi was the Home State or not of the candidate concerned. reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in Abhinav Aggarwal v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 3 SCC p-425.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records.

6. Before adverting to the facts pleaded by the petitioners in support of their pleas that Delhi is their Home State and as such refusal by the respondents to allow them entrance to the course in question is illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted, this Court must trace the history and background leading to the introduction of impugned Clause III (A)(2)(i) of eligibility criteria in the prospectus issued for admissions to the current Session. The respondents in their counter affidavits have rightly pleaded that the aforesaid rule is as a result of and in consequence of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Dr. Prag Gupta's case. In the said case the students who had qualified for Medical Degree Course had got admitted under All India quota of 15 % and had migrated to other states to pursue their Medical Degree Courses. After completion of their MBBS from different States under All India quota of 15%, they sought admission in the Post Graduate Course offered by Delhi University. However, they were not permitted to compete in the 75% quota which was earmarked for the students who had graduated from Delhi University and were asked to compete only for 25% seats to be filled up on All India basis. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Babu speaking for the Bench held that taking into consideration local and regional compulsions, a balance had to be struck so that students who had pursued studies in an outside University or State were not invidiously stranded or marooned. His lordship's observed that the Court did not see any unfair advantage if such students were allowed to compete in the Entrance Test for Post Graduate courses with reference to their Home State and directed the States, Union Territories, Universities to allow students who had pursued MBBS courses from other States to participate in the Post Graduate entrance examinations held in their Home States irrespective of any kind of preference that may have been adopted for selection to Post Graduate Medical Course. In para 10 of the judgment the facts of Dr. Parag Gupta were taken as an illustrative case and it was pointed out that he was born and brought up in Delhi but had studied his MBBS Course in Tamilnadu having been allotted Tamilnadu under the 15% quota filled up on All India basis. The Court considered the question of institutional preference and concluded that in case Students of Home State were also allowed to participate in the Entrance Test, the students in the Home State may be put to a disadvantage only to a small degree of taking competition with respect to very few students falling int he category of the petitioners before the Court. The whole thrust of the judgment was to put an end to the miseries of "invidiously stranded or marooned" medical students who got admitted in other States under 15% All India quota but were now keen to come back to their Home States, join their families and pursue their Post Graduate Medical Courses.

7. It is true that till last year the eligibility critaria was confined to the 11th and 12th Classes only but the respondents in their counter affidavit have clarified that after the Apex Court judgment in Dr. Parag Gupta's case since the Court had not laid down any critaria for determining as to whether a particular State was one's Home State or not, the criteria of only XIth and XIIth Class was introduced temporarily, but a Committee was constituted by the faculty of Medical Sciences to lay down the criteria which ultimately recommended hat with a view to determine the Home State of a candidate, the candidate should be a permanent resident of National Capital of Delhi and should have studied the Xth, XIth and XIIth Classes in a school situated in the Union Territory of Delhi. This proposal was accepted and incorporated in the ordinance. The respondents have relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Abhinav Aggarwal v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 425, Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana and Dr. Sudhir Kr. Gupta v. University of Delhi and Ors. pronounced on 26.7.2001 in CWP No. 27/01 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Vineed Singh and Ors. .

8. In Abhinav Aggarwal's case (supra) the Apex Court upheld the earlier rule in regard to the completion of XIth and XIITh classes from Delhi and reiterated the concept of Home State as propounded in Prag Gupta's case. In Dr. Sudhir Kr. Gupta's case the Apex Court repelled the arguments which had already been addressed to in the case of Prag Gupta as well as Abhinav Aggarwal's case. In Vineet Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court clarified that Dr. Prag Gupta's case covered only those students who had migrated to other States/Universities under 155 All India Quota and were desirous of pursuing further studies in their Home States and not every student who had gone out of his Home State and was desirous of returning back.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents had laid great deal of stress upon Anant Madaan's case (supra) to contend that the criteria of having studied Xth, XIth, and XIIth in the Home State for determining the residence or domicile cannot be considered arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14. In this judgment the Apex Court was examining the rule prescribed by State of Haryana in the year 1994 prescribing that only those candidates who had studied Xth, XII and XII Classes as regular candidates in recognised institution in Haryana were eligible for admission to Medical Courses. The Court came to the conclusion that the said rule was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and as such upheld the same.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not press their challenge to the rule in question prescribing clearance of Xth, XIth and XIIth Classes from Delhi and agree that this rule is primarily aimed at protecting the interests of bonafide residents of Delhi in the matter of admissions to Post Graduate Courses of Delhi University by excluding those who might have done only XIth and XII Class from Delhi but may not be bonafide residents of Delhi and were seeking admission to Post Graduate Courses by claiming Delhi to be their. Home State on the ground that they had done XIth and XIIth Classes from Delhi. Counsel for the petitioners rely upon the case of Meenakshi Malik (supra) and pray that an exception may be carved out in respect of their cases. They contend that both the petitioners have unimpeachable evidence to establish that Delhi is their Home State as their families have been residing here for years together and they have roots in Delhi but for certain reasons beyond their control they could not pursue their Xth class in Delhi and as such there are sufficient grounds for holding that Delhi is their Home State and as such they should be given admission to the Post Graduate Course in question of Delhi University.

11. In Meenakshi Malik's case the Apex Court was dealing with a case of a student who was denied admission at Delhi because the last two years of her school education were not in Delhi on account of the fact that her father, who was in foreign service, was posted out of India and perforce the petitioner-student had to accompany him to Nigeria and continue her education as an overseas candidate. She cleared her GEC (O) level examination recognised by Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi equivalent to Class XI in India. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms observed that in a case where a child has no choice and is compelled to leave him Home State for remaining with his parents the rigour of the rule should be relaxed and there should be no insistence on the fulfillment of the condition. The denial of admission to the petitioner therein was held to be unreasonable and she was held entitled to an order directing the respondents to admit her to one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi. The Courts of equity, justice and good conscience must not ever lose sight of the fact all laws, rules and regulations are hand-maiden of justice aimed at furthering the cause of justice and cannot be permitted to subvert or thwart the stream of justice.

12. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the rule in regard to the completion of Xth, XIth and XIIth from a school in Delhi, which is based on the directions issued by the Apex Court in Parag Gupta's case, aims at curbing non-Delhi students from seeking admission into Post Graduate Courses in Delhi. It is aimed at protecting the interests of those students who are bonafide residents of Delhi and their Home State is Delhi. The rule therefore does not suffer from any vie and cannot be declared unreasonable, arbitrary, ultravires or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the emphasis in Parag Gupta's case was on helping and protecting those who had gone out of Delhi in All India quota of 15% and were keen to come back to their Home State, the Court would be failing in its duty if in an exceptional case where a student found to be a bonafide resident of Delhi, having roots in Delhi and having received his school education in Delhi is desirous of coming back to his Home State but is held ineligible merely on the ground that only his Xth Class was not competed at Delhi. Therefore, in an exceptional case where a student inspite of having born, brought up and educated at Delhi and having his roots in Delhi fails to get covered under the rule for certain reason his case may be treated as an exceptional case and a category apart for grant of relief without tinkering with the rule. It may be added here itself that such cases cannot be in large number for the reason that there would be very few students who would have gone out of Delhi under 15% All India quota and then denied admission on the ground of not having completed Xth Class in Delhi but having sufficient material to show that they have roots in Delhi and it is their Home State.

13. Coming to the question as to whether the petitioners should be permitted or not, as exceptional cases, to get admitted to the Post Graduate Course in question, this Court finds that Dr. Raman Arora's father was an Officer in Canara Bank and was in a transferable job. The petitioner intermittently had his school education in Delhi but had to go out of Delhi as and when his father was transferred out. He studied at Sirsa (Haryana) from 1989 to 1992 and as such had done his Xth class from there. In 1992 when his father came back to Delhi, he jointed DAV Model Sr. Sec. School, Delhi and completed his Class XIth and XIIth from Delhi itself. For one year he did his college also from Delhi at Hans raj College. In 1995 he was allotted a seat in a Medical College at Goa under 15% All India quota. In 2001 he had competed for Entrance for the Post Graduate Course in question and succeeded also but for certain reasons he did not join the course. It may be mentioned here itself that in 2001, he was eligible as till last year rule regarding Xth had not been introduced. The affidavits filed by the petitioner and his father reveal that the petitioner's father all along continued to live in Delhi except during the periods when he got transferred out of Delhi. In para 12 of his affidavit, the petitioner has stated that almost all his blood relations including his grand mother are residing at Delhi in their self owned houses. The petitioner's father has four brothers out of whom three are residing at Delhi in their self owned houses. His father's only sister is also residing at Delhi in a house at Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner's younger brother was born and brought at Delhi and he has done Xth, XIth, and XIIth from Delhi. The petitioner's father became a member of Canara Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. in the year 1982 which shows his intention and resolve to permanently settle in Delhi. In 1989 he was allotted a flat also in the said society which is still in his possession. In the affidavit filed by petitioner's father it is shown that even transfers were accepted by him under compulsion was those were linked to his promotion and the posting to Sirsa was given to him on his request as it was nearest to Delhi and a vacancy was available there.

14. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the petitioner Dr. Raman Arora and his family are permanent residents of and having their roots in Delhi. The petitioners Xth Class from Sirsa was merely on account of the fact that he being a minor and dependant upon his father was unwillingly forced to accompany him to Sirsa and pursue his studies there so long his father remained there. Most of his remaining schooling was at Delhi. Therefore, applying the ratio in Meenakshi Malik's case the petitioner Raman Arora's case has to be taken as an exceptional case where inspite of being a bonafide resident of Delhi and having Delhi as his Home State, he is being deprived admission into the course in question on account of the newly incorporated condition regarding Xth Class. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that it would be absolutely unjust, unfair and unreasonable to deprive him of the benefit of the concept of Home State as laid by the Apex Court in Parag Gupta's case.

15. Adverting to the facts of the case of the petitioner Deepti Lal, this Court finds that her case is on a rather better footing then that of Raman Arora as she was born and brought up at Delhi and even her father was born and brought up at Delhi. They had been living in Old Delhi up to 1992 when they shifted to Saraswati Vihar. Her mother is a Government Servant working in the Education Department of Government of Delhi. It is shown that in the year 1994 her mother was posted at Pandav Nagar which is in Delhi and near Noida. The petitioner being a girl was made to join Summer-ville School at Noida which is near Pandav Nagar, Delhi but falls in U.P. After completing her Xth Class from Summer-ville School, the petitioner again got admitted to Ramjas School, New Delhi from where she completed her XIth and XIIth Classes. She app-eared in PMT in the year 1996 and qualified but finding the course offered by the CBSE a better course she got admission in SRTR Medical College, District Beed, Maharashtra Under 15% All India quota. Her birth certificate shows that she was born at Delhi. Even the maternal grand parents of the petitioner belong to Delhi and her maternal grand father as well as grand mother were in Government service at Delhi. The father of the petitioner had graduated from Delhi University and was working as a Consultant Engineer with a Private Limited Company at Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The grand father of the petitioner who was a Railway employee had shifted to Delhi in 1922 and had died at Delhi on 21.4.1947. The affidavit field by Dr. Deepti Lal in support of her petition shows that her both parents are working in Delhi and as such it cannot be said that she was no roots in Delhi or she is not a bonafide resident of Delhi or that Delhi is not her Home State.

16. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in concluding that petitioner Deepti Lal also is a bonafide resident of Delhi and it is her Home State but on account of certain unavoidable reasons she was admitted to Summer-Ville School, Noida where she completed her Xth Class only. Noida being a part of National Capital Region has almost become a part of Delhi and thousands working in Delhi live at Noida and thousands working in Noida live at Delhi. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner had done her Xth Class from Noida is not enough for holding that she ceased to be a bonafide resident of Delhi or that Delhi was not her Home State specially in view of the fact that her parents were always living and working at Delhi and she being their dependant was living with them. Therefore, the case of Deepti Lal is also a fit case for carving out an exception and permitting her to get admitted in the Post Graduate course of the Delhi University.

17. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the denial of admission to the petitioners in the Post Graduate Course Diploma/Degree in M.S./MD of University of Delhi was unreasonable, unjust and unfair. The petitioners have to be taken out of the rigours of the eligibility rule and permitted to pursue this course as exception only. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners, therefore, are allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to compete for admission in the aforesaid course irrespective of the condition regarding clearance of Xth Class from Delhi as laid in Clause III(A)(2)(i) of Admission Prospectus issued by the respondents.