Answering as to whether a student after filling up the form of counselling and inserting 'No' before a question asked can ask for a change in the entry relating to domicile and take benefit arising thereto, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has held that the same is not permissible.
The Bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition filed by a NEET candidate seeking directions of the Court to allow him to change his domicile status on his counselling form, since the last date of registration had passed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a technical mistake committed by him should not deprive him from the fruits of domicile which he otherwise possess.
He submitted that as per Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, the respondents have made it clear that after registration, no information furnished by candidate shall be permitted to be changed, modified or additional information shall be accepted. Shri Guru urged that this rule should not be given literal interpretation. Otherwise, it will defeat the very purpose of grant of benefit of domicile.
Contending that it is a curable defect, which can be permitted to be cured, he cited Kedar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2016 Latest Caselaw 280 SC, P.A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan & Ors, 2012 Latest Caselaw 247 SC, Molar Mal Vs. M/S. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., 2000 Latest Caselaw 127 SC, M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, 2014 Latest Caselaw 640 SC, Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2002 Latest Caselaw 317 SC, Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, Jee & Ors, 2004 Latest Caselaw 570 SC to submit that the merit should be given preference over any technicality.
The Court in view of precedents set previously observed that there is no doubt that the Rule was treated to be binding and mandatory.
Observing that it is trite that if language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of the consequences, the Court cited P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP vs. STATE OF KERALA, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1174 SC,
The Court went onto state that the language of Rule 6 in our opinion is plain, clear and unambiguous and it should be given effect to in spite of any consequence. The Court was in full agreement with the division bench's analysis and noted that if any other interpretation is given to the said Rule, it will certainly defeat the very purpose of inserting the said Rule in the statute book. Rule 6 is inserted by law maker with a conscious view that if position or factual aspects are permitted to be changed, it will create chaos for the examining authorities.
The Court referred to Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 Latest Caselaw 502 SC
"If constitutionality of a Rule is not called in question, by adopting an interpretative process, we cannot defeat the plain language and purpose of the Rule. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that present defect was curable and Rule is not coming in the way of the petitioner."
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
