Khalid Imam vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 6465 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 1st September, 2015.

+              W.P.(C) No. 8347/2015 & CM No.17685/2015 (for stay)

       KHALID IMAM                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Mr. Matloob
                                       Alam & Ms. Mehak Tanwar, Advs.

                                     Versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                  ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Raj Kumar Dahiya, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

Mr. Amit Bansal, Ms. Seema Dolo and Mr. Akhil Kumar Kulshrestha, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. The petitioner appeared in the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT)

conducted by the respondent no.4 Central Board of Secondary Education

(CBSE) for admission to MBBS course under the All India Quota Seats in

various medical colleges across the country and has secured All India rank of

4198 in the said test.

2. As per the "Guidelines (User Manual) for the Candidates for Online

Registration and Choice Filling" published by the respondent no.4 CBSE,

the candidates declared eligible / qualified for participation in the All India

Quota counselling (as per the result of the said test) were required to, during

the "registration and choice filling period", register through internet in the

manner provided therein and after successful registration submit / log in their

choices of medical colleges. The "registration and choice filling period" was

from 19th to 21st August, 2015 and the process of seat allotment was to begin

on 22nd August, 2015 and the result of the round one of seat allotment to be

declared on 23rd August, 2015 and the candidates allotted colleges in the first

round were to report for admission to the allotted medical college between

24th to 27th August, 2015.

3. This petition was filed on 28th August, 2015 contending that the

petitioner, though registered online but inadvertently failed to fill up / long in

the choices of medical college and owing whereto, in the process of seat

allotment, not allotted a seat though candidates with rank much below the

rank of the petitioner were allocated seats. The petitioner seeks mandamus

for allotment of a seat in any medical college as per his rank and / or a

direction for including his name in the second round of seat allotment to

commence on 1st September, 2015.

4. The petition came up first before this Court yesterday on 31st August,

2015, when notice thereof was issued to the respondents.

5. The counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 Union of India (UOI),

Directorate General of Health Services and Medical Counselling Committee

has today in Court handed over a copy of the letter dated 31 st August, 2015

of the respondent no.2 Directorate General of Health Services, Medical

Examination Cell, to the counsel stating as under:-

"So far as DGHS/MOHFW/MCC (Respondent No.1, 3 and 4) is concerned in the matter, it is stated that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No.298, 299, 305 and 325 of 2015-Tanvi Sarwal Vs. CBSE and ors., the Schedule for online counselling (Allotment Process) for All India Quota Under Graduate (MBBS/BDS) seats for the year 2015 was uploaded on the website of Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) of Directorate General of Health Services for the information / knowledge/benefits of the candidates appearing in online counselling. Copy of Time Schedule is annexed here to ANNEXURE-1.

The main counselling Registration and Choice filling and locking by the candidates was from 19.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 up to 11.59 P.M. as per Schedule mentioned on the website.

In case a candidate did not register or choice filling and locking within prescribed period as mentioned in Schedule is not eligible for online allotment process of All India Under Graduate Quota seats (15%) in terms of All India Quota Scheme as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The Petitioner as per Petition registered but did not fill up choice within stipulated time. The answering Respondent have no authority to allow

the Petitioner to allotted the online counselling for allotment of MBBS/BDS seat under 15% all India Quota because the Petitioner did not fill up choices as per time Schedule uploaded on MCC's website (www.mcc.nic.in).

It is also worth mentioning that the entire date available in NIC Server has been freezed and on the basis of such data, first round of Counselling is already completed on 27/08/2015. The process of second round of allotment is already going on.

As such there is no provision in software to incorporate petitioner choices for allotment at this point of time.

In view of the above you are requested to please appear before Hon'ble High Court on 01.09.2015 and apprise about the facts on behalf

(MOHFW/DGHS/MCC) and protect the interest of the Government and also keep this Directorate informed about the development of the case."

The counsel states that the counselling is online and the petitioner

having not, within the prescribed time, filled / logged in his choice of

medical colleges, cannot participate in online counselling and the system

automatically locked after the time prescribed for registration and choice

filling and now the petitioner cannot be technically permitted to participate

in the second round of counselling / seat allotment underway today i.e. 1 st

September, 2015 and the result whereof is to be published tomorrow i.e. 2nd

September, 2015.

6. I may in this regard notice that, the third and last round of counselling

/ seat allotment is to happen on 9th September, 2015.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has sought to refer to the following

Clauses of the Guidelines (User Manual) aforesaid:-

"The above data submitted by candidate is verified against the candidate's detail provided by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). If it matches, then, Candidate would be allowed access for updating of the candidate's profile along with selection of individual password. In case of any mismatch, the candidate would not be allowed to access the online counselling website. In case of genuine candidates, who could not register for the online counselling, the candidates could approach personally, to nearby Help Centers (Participating Government Medical / Dental College) or MCC Control Room for recovery of the correct information on production of individual identity and other credentials during registration period only."

"9. Choice Locking & Printing of locked choices Locking of choices is mandatory for the processing of choices submitted by the candidate. After completion of the choice submission to ones satisfaction candidate can lock her / her choices during choice locking period, dates of which are mentioned in Counselling Schedule. By clicking the Choice Lock Button and confirming the same, the choices could be locked. Choices once locked can't be unlocked. Therefore the candidates are advised to exercise choice carefully, as the choices above the allotted choice will be processed in second round. In case candidate fails to lock choices, choices filled in by the candidate will be automatically locked at 5:00 PM of last date of locking."

and has contended that the same permit allowing participation of the

petitioner in the process of counselling / seat allotment even though the

petitioner had not filled up the choices and that the same prescribe allocation

of medical college as per its merit and as per the rank of the petitioner, even

without the petitioner filling up / logging in his choices.

8. The aforesaid, is clearly in misconstruction of the language of the

Clauses aforesaid. The same nowhere permit of such interpretation. While

the first of the aforesaid two Clauses provides for seeking assistance in

registration for online counselling, only "during the registration period"

prescribed and the second is with respect to automatic locking of choices

filled up, even if the candidate himself / herself had failed to lock the

choices made / filled up / logged in, as was required to do. Neither of the

aforesaid Clauses permit the inclusion in seat allotment of the candidate who

has not filled up / logged in the choice of medical college, after the system

has automatically locked and / or for allocation of medical college as per

rank. The User Manual clearly required the petitioner to, post registration,

fill up / log in the choices of medical college, to be eligible for seat allotment

during the online counselling.

9. Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner hails from District Siwan in Bihar and is not well-versed in login

and in computerised counselling.

10. However that is not the case pleaded. The petitioner, as per his

petition, was merely inadvertent in not filling up his choices.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has also sought to invoke the plea of

"merit ought to prevail". It is contended that the candidates with All India

rank as low as 77000 have been allocated a seat and the petitioner with a

rank of 4198 should not be made to lose a year.

12. Our Courts have been very frequently bending the Rules in the name

of preventing injustice. However, computerised counselling having been

introduced to provide a transparent, tamper and tool proof admission

process, to me it appears that if this Court were to continue passing

directions / orders, interfering therewith, the same would obviate the whole

purpose of introducing mechanised foolproof system of seat allotment and

would not sub-serve the larger public interest.

13. The petitioner, who is an aspirant for admission to prestigious, ardous

course of MBBS, requiring him to exercise care to the utmost, ought to have

gone through the User Manual carefully and followed the same. It is not the

case of the petitioner that he was prevented from filling up the choices for

any reasons beyond his control or for any circumstance which may be

described as act of God.

14. Moreover, this Court cannot in exercise of powers under Article 226

of the Constitution of India give a direction in contravention of the rules of

admission and cannot be generous or liberal in issuing directions to

authorities to violate their own rules and regulations. Reference in this

regard may be made to the host of case law referred to in the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Amit Kumar Vs. University of Delhi

MANU/DE/3046/2014.

15. I am also of the opinion that to ensure proper governance, it has

become necessary to abide by the Rules and to minimise the variation, in the

name of doing justice, therefrom.

16. I am therefore constrained to hold that no relief can be granted to the

petitioner.

Dismissed.

No costs.

Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2015/„pp‟..