Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rumiel vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 February, 2021
CWP No. 22753 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 22753 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 09.02.2021
Rumiel .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE.
Present:- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. M.S.Longia, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.17.
(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the
proceedings are being conducted in virtual Court).
****
RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
The petitioner who had appeared in the NEET-2020
examination seeking admission in the MBBS course has filed this petition
being aggrieved by denial of admission in the government college under the
Scheduled Caste (deprived) category. The petitioner has also prayed for
quashing of the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by respondent No.2-
Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by her as well as the order
allotting a seat to her in the private medical college in the first round of
counseling. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the admission
granted to respondents No.5 to 17 in the MBBS course in Government
College in violation of the rule of merit on the ground that she has obtained
more marks in the NEET-2020 than the aforesaid respondents.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that
the petitioner having obtained 442 marks in NEET-2020 examination
applied for admission in the State of Haryana under the Scheduled Caste
1 of 14
category. The first counseling for making admission in MBBS course took
place on 15.11.2020 and thereafter provisional allotment list was issued on
21.11.2020, according to which the petitioner was allotted a MBBS seat in a
private medical college, namely, NC Medical College and Hospital, Israna in
the scheduled caste category. The petitioner as per the schedule and
provisions for filing objections prescribed by the authorities objected to
allocation of a seat in a private college as a scheduled caste candidate. It is
stated by the petitioner that she immediately thereafter filed a representation
on 21.11.2020/22.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) informing the respondent-
authorities that the petitioner had by mistake filled up the form mentioning
her category as scheduled caste whereas the petitioner infact belongs to the
scheduled caste (deprived) category. The petitioner was informed vide order
dated 22.11.2020 received on 24.11.2020, that her case had been considered
as a schedule caste candidate in accordance with the category mentioned by
her in her form and therefore, she had been allotted a private medical college
on the basis of her merit in that category.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition No.22573 of
2020 before this Court which was decided by this Court on 02.12.2020
whereby this Court on a statement being made by the learned Additional
Advocate General, Haryana, relegated the petitioner to the Appellate
Authority in terms of Clause 11(x) of the Haryana Government Gazette
Extra Ordinary Notification dated 29.10.2020 wherein the procedure for
admission in MBBS/BDS courses has been prescribed. The petitioner's
father thereafter applied for change of petitioner's category from scheduled
caste to scheduled caste (deprived) on 04.12.2020 which was permitted and
thereafter the petitioner participated in the second round of counseling held
2 of 14
on 12.12.2020. In terms of her changed category, the petitioner was allotted
a BDS seat in Pandit Bhagwat Dayal, PGIMS, Rohtak as a scheduled caste
(deprived) candidate. On 24.12.2020, the State authorities issued a fresh
notice for registration of candidates for the mop-up round wherein the
petitioner again participated as a scheduled caste (deprived) candidate but
did not take admission as she did not get the college of her choice.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on
27.12.2020 challenging the proceedings of the first round of counseling and
claiming consideration of her case as a scheduled caste (deprived) candidate
for admission on a government seat. On 30.12.2020, the Director General,
Medical Education & Research, Haryana, considered the appeal filed by the
petitioner pursuant to the observations made by this Court in Civil Writ
Petition No. 20573 of 2020 and dismissed the same reiterating the fact that
the petitioner had applied as a scheduled caste candidate and not as a
scheduled caste (deprived) candidate and therefore, her claim for being
considered as a scheduled caste (deprived) candidate in the first round of
counseling was untenable. The petitioner has consequently amended the
petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that admittedly
the petitioner is a "Khatik" by caste which is a scheduled caste (deprived) as
mentioned at Sr. No. 19 in Annexure II to the Notification dated 29.10.2020
(Annexure P-3) in respect of which she also possesses a certificate and in
such circumstances the respondent-authorities were bound to consider her
candidature as a scheduled caste (deprived) category candidate inspite of the
fact that the petitioner had filled up the form as a scheduled caste candidate
and not as a scheduled caste (deprived) candidate, more so as the said
3 of 14
omission on the part of the petitioner was a bonafide mistake which should
have been permitted to be corrected by the respondent-authorities.
6. The petitioner has also alleged that the petitioner has obtained
442 marks in the NEET examination which are much more than the marks
obtained by respondents No.5 to 17 and certainly more marks than
respondent No.17 who has obtained only 408 marks inspite of which they
have been allotted seats in the government college while the petitioner has
been allotted a seat in a private medical college. The petitioner submits that
as the mistake on her part being bonafide, the authorities should have
considered her claim under the scheduled caste (deprived) category but as
they have not done so at the stage of first round of counseling, the first round
of counseling be quashed and the petitioner be allotted a seat in the
Government College in preference to and in place of respondent No.17. The
challenge is confined to the first round of counseling.
7. It is pertinent to note that this submission has been made by the
petitioner as the petitioner has given up her claim as far as it relates to
respondents No. 5 to 16 and on that count the notice in this petition was
issued only to respondent No.17.
8. The respondent authorities as well as the respondent No.17
while opposing the petition and the contentions raised by the petitioner have
submitted that a total of 114 seats have been reserved for scheduled caste
category out of which 57 have been reserved for the scheduled caste
(deprived) category. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioner did not
apply under the scheduled caste (deprived) category but infact applied as a
scheduled caste candidate is not disputed and is an admitted fact and
therefore, as per the rules and the notification issued by the State of Haryana,
4 of 14
the petitioner's claim for admission was considered under the category
mentioned by her in her form, namely, scheduled caste category.
9. The respondents have pointed out and drawn the attention of
this Court to clause 16(g) of the General Instructions mentioned in the
notification dated 29.10.2020, Annexure P-3, which specifically provides
that "in case a candidate does not fill up his reserve category in his
application form, he/she will not be subsequently considered for admission
against that category". It is submitted that in such circumstances, the
petitioner's claim for considering her case as a scheduled caste (deprived)
category candidate is misconceived.
10. The respondents have further stated that as per the schedule for
counseling issued on 14.11.2020 (Annexure P-4), registration on online
portal was to be undertaken from 15.11.2020 to 18.11.2020; editing in the
form was permitted up to 19.11.2020; locking of choice was also to be made
by the same date; the provisional allocation of seats was to be notified on
21.11.2020 and grievances regarding provisional allocation of seats were to
be raised up to 22.11.2020 whereafter reallocation of seats would be
undertaken on 23.11.2020.
11. It is submitted that undisputedly the petitioner had applied
under the scheduled caste category and did not request for correcting the
same till 19.11.2020 which was the last date for doing so, therefore, the
petitioner's claim was considered under that category. After the first
counseling was over, the petitioner belatedly approached the authority in this
regard but the same could not be considered in terms of clause 16(g) of the
procedure notified vide Annexure P-3.
5 of 14
12. It is submitted that subsequently in lieu of the order passed by
this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20415 of 2020 filed by Sachin and
Dhitika on 27.11.2020 directing the Director General, Medical Education &
Research, Haryana to decide their appeals, the Director General granted
relaxation by way of one chance to change the category/editing the
application form for the second round of counseling and extended the benefit
of this relaxation to all the candidates and issued an order to this effect on
28.11.2020 vide Annexure P-13.
13. The petitioner's father in terms of the order passed by the
Appellate Authority on 28.11.2020 made a request through email for the first
time on 04.12.2020 before the respondent-authorities for change of category
in the second round of counseling from scheduled caste to scheduled caste
(deprived) category, wherein the petitioner admitted the fact that she had
mistakenly filled the form under the scheduled caste category. This request
was made by the petitioner for the first time on 04.12.2020 much after the
first round of counseling and was entertained only because of the relaxation
granted by the Appellate Authority permitting such change as a onetime
measure, that to, for second round of counseling alone.
14. The respondents have pointed out that after the change was
permitted, the second round of counseling was held on 15.12.2020 wherein
the petitioner participated as a scheduled caste (deprived) category candidate
and was allotted a seat in the BDS course in Pandit Bhagwat Dayal, PGIMS,
Rohtak on merit in accordance with the seats available for counseling during
the second round.
6 of 14
15. The petitioner also participated in the mop up round counseling
held on 30.12.2020 but decided not to seek allocation of the seat as she was
again getting a seat in a private college. It is submitted that the Appellate
Authority in terms of the directions in the petition filed by the petitioner
rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner claiming consideration of her case
in the first round of counseling as a scheduled caste (deprived) candidate by
passing a speaking order on 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-26).
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is evident that the present
case is not one where the petitioner had applied under the scheduled caste
(deprived) category but was deliberately and mistakenly not considered as a
scheduled caste (deprived) category by the respondent authorities during the
first round of counseling. It is submitted that admittedly the instant case is
one where the petitioner had applied as a scheduled caste candidate and was
considered in that category and could not have been considered in the
scheduled caste (deprived) category on that count and therefore, there is no
mistake or fault on the part of the authorities in considering the case of the
petitioner as a scheduled caste candidate.
17. It is further submitted that a category once filled up by the
candidate in the application form cannot be permitted to be changed
subsequently in terms of Clause 16(g) of the notification (Annexure P-3) and
in such circumstances, her claim had to be and was rightly considered under
the schedule caste category for allotment of a seat in the first round of
counseling. It is stated that subsequently in view of the order dated
27.11.2020 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20415 of 2020,
the competent authority took a decision to grant relaxation permitting the
7 of 14
applicants to change their categories only for the second round of counseling
and this relaxation was granted to all the candidates who wished to make
such a change. It is submitted that the petitioner's father for the first time
made a request for change of the category from scheduled caste to scheduled
caste (deprived) on 04.12.2020 which was permitted and thereafter the
petitioner participated in the second round of counseling on 15.12.2020 as a
scheduled caste (deprived) candidate.
18. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority took all the
aforesaid facts into consideration as well as the fact that the candidate was
granted time only up to 19.11.2020 to correct or edit the admission form but
the petitioner did not do so prior to the first counseling and on the contrary
participated in the first round of counseling as a scheduled caste candidate,
therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondent-
authorities as the same is in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The
Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the
petitioner was permitted to participate in the second round of counseling as a
scheduled caste (deprived) candidate after the petitioner applied for and was
permitted to change the category from scheduled caste to scheduled caste
(deprived) on 04.12.2020 and was thereafter allotted a seat of BDS course in
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal, PGIMS, Rohtak in accordance with her merit and the
seats available for counseling at that point of time.
19. The respondents submit that the last date for granting admission
had been extended up to 15.01.2021 by the Supreme Court vide order dated
11.01.2021 passed in MA No.2282 of 2020 in WP(C) No.76 of 2015. It is
stated that as the last date for admission is over, no relief can now be granted
to the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed as her case does
8 of 14
not fall within the exception to this rule as laid down in the case of
S.Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2019 SCC online (SC) 1609.
In support of their submissions, the respondents have relied upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Medical Council of India v.
Madhu Singh and others 2002(7) SCC 258; Mridul Dhar (Minor) and
another v. Union of India and others 2005(2) SCC 65; Medical Council of
India v. Manas Ranjan Behera and others 2010(1) SCC 173; Priya Gupta
v. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2012(7) SCC 433; Chandigarh
Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others 2014(10) SCC
521 and S.Nihaal Ahmed v. Dean elammal Medical College Hospital and
Research Indstitute and others 2016(1) SCC 662.
20. It is further submitted by the respondents that even in the light
of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case S.Krishna Sradha v.
State of Andhra Pradesh 2019 SCC online (SC) 1609, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner as no fault or mistake can be attributed to the
respondent-authorities in the admission process and infact the mistake is
admittedly attributable to the petitioner herself.
21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
22. The admitted and undisputed facts that emerge from the
averments and documents in the petition as well as from the submissions of
the parties are that the petitioner has obtained 442 marks in NEET-2020
examination; that the petitioner applied for admission under the scheduled
caste category and not under the scheduled caste (deprived) category; that
her case for admission was considered by the respondent-authorities under
the scheduled caste category in the first round of counseling; that she was
allotted an MBBS seat in a private college in accordance with her merit; that
9 of 14
subsequently the petitioner and others were permitted to change their
categories as a onetime measure for the second round of counseling vide
order dated 27.11.2020; that the petitioner thereafter for the first time
applied for change of her category from scheduled caste to scheduled caste
(deprived) on 04.12.2020 and was permitted to do so; that the petitioner was
thereafter permitted to participate in the second round of counseling as a
scheduled caste (deprived) candidate and was allotted a BDS seat in Pandit
Bhagwat Dayal, PGIMS, Rohtak which the petitioner refused to accept; that
the petitioner participated in the mop up round of counseling but being
unhappy with the allotment of seat chose not to accept the same; that the
Appellate Authority after taking all these aspects into consideration and by
recording a finding to the effect that the petitioner had applied as a
scheduled caste category candidate and was therefore, considered as such in
the first round of counseling for which no fault could be attributed to the
respondent-authorities rejected her appeal and that the last date for
admission i.e. 15.01.2021 is over.
23. From a perusal of clause 16(g) of the procedure for admission
in MBBS/BDS courses notified by the State by notification dated
29.10.2020 (Annexure P-3), it is evident that a candidate who fails to fill up
and specify his or her reserve category in the application form would not be
subsequently considered for admission under the category not mentioned in
the application form. In other words the candidate is bound by the category
mentioned in the application form and no change in the application is
permissible after the last date for editing or correcting the form is over.
24. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner
applied as a schedule caste and not as a schedule caste (deprived) candidate
10 of 14
and did not make any correction or change in the form till last date
prescribed for the same, namely, 19.11.2020. In fact, admittedly, the
petitioner did not make any request for change of category or raise any
objection while participating in the first round of counseling and did so only
after publication of the provisional allotment list as she was unable to obtain
admission in the Government quota.
25. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claim of the petitioner for
consideration of her case in the first round of counseling as a schedule caste
(deprived) category candidate inspite of the admitted fact that the petitioner
had applied as a schedule caste candidate has no merit and deserves to be
rejected in the light of clause 16(g) of the notification dated 29.10.2020
(Annexure P-3) which specifically prohibits any such change or
consideration after 19.11.2020. The procedure followed by the respondents
is in accordance with law and cannot be found fault with.
26. We also find force and express our agreement with the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the
Supreme Court in a series of judgments has categorically held that no relief
of admission or claim thereof can be considered after the last date of
admission is over which in the instant case is 15.01.2021, except in the
circumstances and eventualities culled out in the decision in the case of
S.Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra).
27. The only question that remains open for this Court to consider
and decide is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to and can be granted
any relief after the cut of date in the present case in which the petitioner and
not the respondents are at fault, in terms of the decision of the Supreme
Court in S.Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). The
11 of 14
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, while answering the questions
referred to it namely, whether a meritorious candidate can be denied
admission after the lapse of the cut of date though the candidate is
meritorious and is not at all at fault and who had pursued his/her legal
remedy/right expeditiously without delay, has held as under:-
"33. In light of the discussion/observations
made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has
been denied an admission in MBBS Course illegally or
irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who
has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such
a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no
fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:
(i) That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any
delay and that the question is with respect to the
admission in medical course all the efforts shall be
made by the concerned court to dispose of the
proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.
(ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds
that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and
the candidate has pursued his/her legal right
expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only
on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent
breach of rules and regulations as well as related
principles in the process of grant of admission which
would violate the right of equality and equal treatment
to the competing candidates and if the time schedule
prescribed - 30th September, is over, to do the
complete justice, the Court under exceptional
circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the
admission in the same year by directing to increase
the seats, however, it should not be more than one or
two seats and such admissions can be ordered within
reasonable time, i.e., within one month from
30th September, i.e., cut off date and under no
circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in
the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is
observed that such relief can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare
cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may
also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a
candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the
category who, if the admission would have been given
to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied
admission illegally, would not have got the admission,
if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose
admission is sought to be cancelled.
(iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no
relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate
in the very academic year and wherever it finds that
the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in
12 of 14
breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus
affecting the rights of the students and that a
candidate is found to be meritorious and such
candidate/student has approached the court at the
earliest and without any delay, the court can mould
the relief and direct the admission to be granted to
such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing
appropriate directions by directing to increase in the
number of seats as may be considered appropriate in
the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is
found that the management was at fault and wrongly
denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in
that case, the Court may direct to reduce the
number of seats in the management quota of that
year, meaning thereby the student/students who
was/were denied admission illegally to be
accommodated in the next academic year out of the
seats allotted in the management quota.
(iv) Grant of the compensation could be an additional
remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award
the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who
for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic
year and who could not be granted any
relief of admission in the same academic year.
(v) It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain
for Admission in MBBS Course only and we have not
dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course."
28. From the perusal of the above it is apparent that the reliefs
enumerated by the Supreme Court can be granted even after the cut of date
to only those students who though meritorious have been denied admission
in the MBBS course illegally or irrationally on account of a mistake or fault
on the part of the authorities and not on the part of the students and who
have approached the Court in time and have diligently pursued their remedy
before the Court.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the
light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner as we have categorically held that no fault or mistake has been
committed by the authorities while considering her case for admission in the
first round of counseling and on the contrary it is the petitioner who has
herself committed a mistake in filling up her admission form by mentioning
13 of 14
her category as a scheduled caste and not as a scheduled caste (deprived).
Moreover, the petitioner has also not been diligent as inspite of the fact that
the petitioner had the chance and opportunity to correct or edit her admission
form prior to the commencement of the first round of counseling by
19.11.2020, the petitioner chose not to do so nor did the petitioner object to
the consideration of her claim as a scheduled caste candidate at any point of
time before or during the first round of counseling and only did so for the
first time after the first round of counseling was over. Quite apart from the
above, the petitioner for the first time sought for change of her category
from scheduled caste to scheduled caste (deprived) on 04.12.2020 much
after the first round of counseling that too on the basis of one time
change/relaxation granted by the authorities vide order dated 28.11.2020
only for the purpose of participating in the second round of counseling.
30. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no
fault can be found with the action of the respondent-authorities while
conducting the counseling nor is any perversity or illegality present or
evident in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the
petitioner's appeal. We are also of the considered opinion that on account of
the fact that the last date is over, the relief for admission or for quashing the
first round of counseling made by the petitioner is meritless and deserves to
be rejected. The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly
dismissed.
(RAVI SHANKER JHA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ARUN PALLI)
09.02.2021 JUDGE
ravinder sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whetherreportable Yes/No
14 of 14
