Shri Naveen Kumar vs Faculty Of Medical Science & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3210 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        Judgment delivered on: 08.07.2011


                             W.P.(C) No. 4379/2011


Shri Naveen Kumar                              ......Petitioner

                Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

                                  Vs.

Faculty of Medical Science & Ors.              ......Respondents

                Through: Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
     be allowed to see the judgment?                           Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                          Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
     in the Digest?                                            Yes


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:
*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India , the petitioner seeks directions to direct

the respondent no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in

OBC category and then to grant him admission in the MBBS

Course.

2. The background of facts that has led to the filing

of the present petition is that the petitioner had applied for

admission in the Delhi University Medical Dental Entrance

Test(DUMET) 2011 and in the application form he filled his

category as general category and that before the result of the

examination, on 30.5.2011 he made a representation to the

respondent university to change his category from general to

OBC . The grievance raised by the petitioner is that his

request to change the general category to OBC category has

been disallowed by the respondent no.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had sought to change his category from general to

OBC well before the declaration of his result in the entrance

examination. Counsel also submits that the marks obtained by

the petitioner in the entrance examination are much higher

than the other OBC candidates and the said refusal on the

part of the University to change his category would deprive

a meritorious student to get an admission in the MBBS

course while less meritorious candidates will march over him.

Counsel also submits that at the time of submission of his

application form the petitioner was not in possession of the

OBC certificate and therefore he had applied in the general

category and he has sought change in his category from

general to OBC immediately after having obtained the said

OBC certificate. Counsel also submits that such a change is

permitted by other Educational Institutes and one such

institute is Central Counseling Board where the

candidates appearing in the entrance test of AIEEE are

being provided one opportunity to correct the erroneous

entries made in their application forms before the

commencement of the central counseling process. Counsel

thus submits that the respondent being a Central University

should also permit the petitioner to change his category from

general to OBC, otherwise the petitioner would be

unnecessarily deprived of his admission in the MBBS course

for no fault on his part. The contention of the counsel for the

petitioner is that the caste of the petitioner falls in the OBC

category as per the centralized list and he cannot be

deprived to get due benefit of being an OBC candidate.

4. Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for

the respondent Mr. Rupal who appears on advance notice

took a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of

the present petition. Counsel submits that the petitioner has

deliberately not placed on record the Information Bulletin for

under graduate courses of the respondent university.

Counsel further submits that in the beginning of the said

Information Bulletin, important dates have been duly

mentioned for every stage from the sale of Information

Bulletin till the closure of admissions. The contention of the

counsel for the respondent is that the sale of bulletin started

from 24.1.2001 and the last date of receipt of the application

forms in respect of the MBBS course was 7th March, 2011

and therefore there was ample time for the petitioner to have

carefully gone through the instructions and necessary

information given in the said Bulletin well before the

submission of the application form. Referring to clause 1.13 of

the Information Bulletin, counsel further submits that the said

clause clearly stipulates that the application forms which are

incomplete in any respect will be summarily rejected and no

correspondence in this regard will be entertained by the

University. Counsel also submits that the said clause also

clearly prohibits the petitioner to carry out any alteration in

the application form after submission of the same with the

faculty office. Counsel also submits that any change of

category at this stage will cause serious prejudice to other

OBC candidates as it is not the case of the petitioner alone as

many other such candidates had sought for such a change in

their category from General to OBC and were disallowed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

given my serious consideration to the arguments advanced by

them.

6. Undeniably, it is the unfettered right of a

candidate to apply in the category to which he or she

belongs to as listed under clause 2.1.4 of the Information

Bulletin. Various categories have been defined under which

candidates can apply in the application form appended in the

said Information Bulletin itself. The prescribed categories

under the said clause are as under:

"2.1.4 The candidates may apply by submitting application form appended with BOI under the following categories:-

       (i)        General category (General)
       (ii)       Scheduled Caste category(SC)
       (iii)      Scheduled Tribe category (ST)
       (iv)       Other Backward Classes (OBC)
       (v)        Children, Widows and Wives of Armed and Para
                  Military Personnel category (CWWAPP)
       (vi)       Physically Handicapped category (PH)

7. Under clause 1.24, the candidates are required to

submit only one application form and submission of more than

one application form by a candidate can result in the

cancellation of the application form of such a candidate.

Under clause 1.13 of the Information Bulletin it has been

clearly laid down that the application forms which are

incomplete will be summarily rejected and even no

correspondence in this regard shall be entertained by the

Admission Committee. The said clause further stipulates that

no alteration will be allowed by the University once the

application form is duly submitted by the candidate to the

faculty office. The said clause is also reproduced as under:

"1.13 Application forms, which are incomplete in any respect, will be summarily rejected and no correspondence will be entertained in this regard. Further, no alteration will be allowed to be made in the Application Form after it has been submitted to the Faculty Office. The candidate for DUMET is required to fill the admission ticket attached with the application form in duplicate and return the same along with the application form. The admission ticket must be signed by the candidate before submission. The declaration at the end of application form should be signed by the candidate. "

8. There is also a Note given above the

aforementioned clause in capital letters which also directs the

candidate to fill in the application form in his/her own

handwriting. Clause 1.8 of the Bulletin further requires the

candidate to furnish true and correct information in the

application form as furnishing of any false information or even

concealment of any material information will result into the

cancellation of candidature of such a candidate. The said

clause is reproduced as under:

"1.8 In case any candidate is found to have furnished false information or document etc, or is found to have withheld or concealed any material information while submitting his/her application, his/her candidature/result/admission will be cancelled and fee deposited by him/her shall be forfeited."

9. As would be seen from the perusal of the aforesaid

clauses forming part of the said Information Bulletin, every

candidate is required to furnish true and correct information

about the particulars to be disclosed by him in terms of

various clause specified in the application form. Not only that,

it is not an incomplete information which will result in

rejection of the application form but even no alteration in

the application form can be permitted to such a candidate

after the same has been submitted by him/her to the faculty

office.

10. It would be relevant here to mention that in the

representation of the petitioner dated 30.5.2011 addressed to

the respondent university,(placed on record as Annexure P2)

he has stated that the following:

"With due respect this is to hereby bring to your kind notice

that myself Naveen Kumar filled the DUMET form for the year

2011. As one of the details to be mentioned in the form, I had

given my category as General whereas I belong to OBC category

basically, but could not mention it due to lack of knowledge."

It would be evident that the petitioner mentioned that he did

not mention the OBC category due to lack of knowledge. To

which category a student belongs, whether it is Scheduled

Castes or Scheduled Tribes or belonging to OBC candidate,

the same is known to a candidate himself/herself and not to

the University. It cannot be said that one would know his

category later in time after submission of his/her application

form. It is, therefore, incumbent and imperative for a

candidate to correctly state in the relevant column of the

application form as under which category he or she belongs

and seeks admission. Undoubtedly a candidate even

belonging to a reserved category can seek his admission under

the General Category and once having applied in the General

Category then later in time he or she cannot change his/her

position to change the category. Here would be relevant to

mention here the judgment of this court in the case of Udit

Sehgal vs. University of Delhi 2003(66)DRJ124 wherein

the petitioner had applied to for admission in B.E degree in

the general category at the time of application and later on

suffering from an accident, later sought change from the

general category to the physically handicapped category,

which was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the

application process is stated to be completed when the

application form is submitted and no change thereafter can be

sought after the said date. It would be relevant to reproduce

the relevant para of the said judgment here:

"There is a complete prohibition on change of category after the receipt of completed application form as per Condition No. 2 of the 'Bulletin of Information'. The material or crucial date as per the 'Bulletin of Information' is the date of receipt of application form. On the said date, the petitioner was not eligible to apply in the category of physically handicapped. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Harpal Kaur Chahal's case (Supra), it would not help even if the candidate acquire the qualification or eligibility subsequently after the cut-off date. Thus the subsequent disability would not make the petitioner eligible after the date of receipt of complete application. Moreover, in this case the admission process is stated to be over. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (Supra) has also cautioned in taking too sympathetic a view of such situations and observed that the cut-off date, by which all requirements relating to qualification and eligibility, have to be met, ought not to be ignored."

11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the

petitioner had applied in the General Category to seek

admission in MBBS Course and later he sought change in his

category. Such an alteration is clearly impermissible in terms

of clause 1.13 of the Bulletin of Information. It is not the

case of the petitioner that he had furnished a correct

information about his category as that of belonging to OBC

and he could not furnish proof of the same. The courts have

been taking a liberal view so far non submission of such

certificates at the time of submission of the application

forms in certain situations but certainly to permit a candidate

to change his/her category itself neither seems logical nor

legally permissible in terms of the requirements laid down in

the Bulletin. Counsel for the respondent has also taken a

stand that the instructions laid down in the Bulletin of

Information have a statutory force as the said instructions

were introduced after the same are passed by the University

under its statutory powers. Without going into this issue, this

court does not find any merit in the present petition. A

candidate is expected to at least know which caste or

category he or she belongs to and accordingly truthfully state

his/her category in the application form. A change of category

thus sought by the petitioner at a later stage although may be

before the declaration of results cannot be permitted to the

petitioner. Reliance by the petitioner on such change being

permitted by the Central Counselling Board (AIEEE-2011) can

be of no help to the petitioner as no such change has been

permitted by the University of Delhi and it is not the case of

the petitioner that the clause contained in the Information

Bulletin should be struck down as being discriminatory or

being in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

12. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the

present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

July 08, 2011                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg