Miss Sonam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2018 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1780 of 2023
Miss Sonam                                  .............Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
              Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
              for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
              Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to a

communication made by the respondent no.2, Registrar,

Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University ("the University"), by

which, the petitioner has been conveyed, "....her final year

result is halt for the moment and the previous result will

be considered invalid as per University standards. Till

further notice, the student Sonam should be told to stop

from starting any internship."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It may be noted that the instant petition has

been admitted on 23.06.2023. On that date, the Court, as

an interim measure, directed the University to issue

necessary directions within seven working days from then

to permit the petitioner to undergo internship subject to

the condition that the internship shall remain subject to

final outcome of the writ petition. The Court had directed

the parties to exchange pleadings. This Court on

23.06.2023 also observed that, "neither the respondents

nor the petitioner could be entitled to any

adjournment or extension of time for filing of

pleadings, because these are the matters, which need

to be decided promptly in a time bound manner."

4. The respondent nos.3 and 4 were issued

notices. Registry has reported that "item dispatched".

Service is sufficient upon the respondent nos.3 and 4, but

they did not appear.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would

submit that the respondent no.2 may be permitted to file

a detailed counter affidavit.

6. The Court had already made it clear on

23.06.2023 that no extension would be entertained. The

Court does not see any such reason, which may relax

those stipulations as of now. There is no reason to extend

the time to file counter affidavit. Therefore, the Court is

reluctant to decline the request made on behalf of the

respondent no.2 to give further time to file counter

affidavit.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts

need to be recapitulated. According to the petitioner, one

Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary had taken admission in BAMS

course for 2017 Batch in the respondent no.3,

Motherhood Ayurvedic College Roorkee, District Haridwar

("the college"). But, on 15.05.2018, he informed the

college that since he has been admitted in MBBS course,

he wants to withdraw his admission, and requested to

cancel his registration. The request was accepted and the

registration was cancelled.

8. The petitioner submitted her application form

for admission in the college. On 21.06.2018, the college

informed the petitioner that she has been admitted for

BAMS course. When the petitioner cleared her first year

examination, against her name, the Roll number of Shri

Shiv Om Chaudhary was wrongly mentioned. The

petitioner made a representation to the University and it

was rectified. After completion of four years course, the

petitioner was declared successful. She finally cleared the

BAMS course in the year 2020. The Indian Medical

Central Council granted "No Objection Certificate" for her

internship.

9. The Uttarakhand Medical Council also entered

the name of the petitioner in the Doctors' Register for

internship. But, the respondent no.2, the University by

the impugned communication directed the petitioner not

to pursue her internship, which is impugned herein.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner had applied for admission in

the college; she was duly admitted; she did not conceal

anything; her result was declared; in the first year result,

against her roll number the name of Shri Shiv Om

Chaudhary was reflected, therefore, she made a

representation and accordingly the University had

rectified the mistake.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that thereafter, in every year of the BAMS course

the petitioner's name reflected correctly in her result. She

completed the course in the year 2020. She was given "No

Objection Certificate" by the competent authority, but

suddenly, by the impugned communication the

respondent no.2 has directed her not to pursue for

internship, which is not as per law.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

no.2, the University would submit that the petitioner was

wrongly given admission against the roll number of one

Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary, who was duly admitted in the

BAMS course. The petitioner has herself made a request

for correcting her name in the first year result.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the

University would submit that the authority of the college

has committed a mistake in not properly verifying and

following the procedure for admission of the petitioner in

BAMS course.

14. It is not the case of the respondent no.2, the

University also that the petitioner had concealed anything

or committed any fraud or misrepresented or gave any

false information at the time of her admission. The

petitioner has already completed BAMS course. She was

duly admitted. Her results were declared by the

respondent no.2, the University. As stated, she cannot be

blamed for her admission. If there were any error to be

detected by the authority, perhaps the lapse may be

attributed to such authority, but because of the act, five

youthful years of the petitioner may not be allowed to be

spoiled. In one of such situations, in the case of Rajendra

Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University, 1986 Supp.

SCC 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "The

fault lies with the engineering colleges which

admitted the appellants because the Principals of

these engineering colleges must have known that the

appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for

the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they

granted admission to the appellants. We do not see

why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the

managements of these engineering colleges. We would

therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in

this Judgment, allow the appellants to continue their

studies in the respective engineering colleges in

which they were granted admission."

15. It is not the case that the college was not

competent to admit the petitioner as a BAMS student. The

only point that has been raised by the respondent no.2,

the University is that she was given admission against the

enrollment of Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary, who had

cancelled his registration. But, as stated, the petitioner

revealed everything, made a representation; she was

admitted, she cleared her examinations, she was granted

marksheet; she was declared successful after completion

of the course. Therefore, at this stage, it would be most

unjust to the petitioner, if she is restrained to proceed

further in the direction. She cannot be stopped from

pursuing internship. Therefore, the writ petition deserves

to be allowed.

16. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned

communication made by the respondent no.2, the

Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University is hereby

quashed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.08.2023 Sanjay