MAUSUMI NANDI v. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA — 1994 DIGILAW 236 (CAL)

S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: The prayers of the petitioner inter alia in this application, are : (A) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and their servants, subordinate and agents to : (i)act and proceed according to law ; (ii)admit and allow your petitioner to be admitted to the M. D. (Tropical Medicine) course of the Calcutta University for the session 1994-97 for admission to which she has been duly selected ; (iii)treat your petitioner as an eligible candidate for grant of admission to the said post-graduate medical degree course ; (iv)forbear from applying Rule 7 of Part III of the General Information (1994) in her case by reason of her having duly resigned from the Diploma course ; (v)forbear from filling up the seats in the M. D. (Tropical Medicine) course without first admitting the petitioner thereto. (B) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents to certify and tansmit the records of the case containing the impugned decision, if any refusing to admit the petitioner to the M. D. (Tropical Medicine) course for the current session and all proceedings relating thereto, so that conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing and/or setting aside the same. (C) Declaration be made that the petitioner having duly resigned from the said DTCD course on 1st February, 1994 is not ineligible to be considered and selected for a seat in the said post-graduate medical decree course of the Calcutta University in the current session. (D) Declaration be made that Rule 7 of Part III of the General Information disallowing candidates from applying for a degree course during the continuance of any other course is unreasonable arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was admitted to the post-graduate diploma course for the session 1993-95. The petitioner submitted an application for post-graduate entrance test on 2. 2. 94 and in the selected list of candidates published by the University of Calcutta on 7. 4. 94 for the session 1994-97 her name appeared at serial No. 4 in the M. D. (Tropical Medicine) Course as also in M. D. (TB and Chest) as serial No. 2 in the waiting list. 2. 94 and in the selected list of candidates published by the University of Calcutta on 7. 4. 94 for the session 1994-97 her name appeared at serial No. 4 in the M. D. (Tropical Medicine) Course as also in M. D. (TB and Chest) as serial No. 2 in the waiting list. According to the petitioner, even prior to her appearance at the said examination she had submitted her resignation from the diploma course on or about 1. 2. 94 and she also stopped drawing her stipend. According to the petitioner, she again submitted her resignation on 8. 4. 94, which was received in the office of the Principal or the Head of the Department on 11. 4. 94. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that she had resigned from the post graduate diploma course in terms of her aforementioned letter, admission fee was not accepted from her on the ground that she is not eligible therefore in terms of Cl. 7 of the General Informations. ( 4 ) MR. Nigam Chakrabortty, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions in support of his application. The Learned Counsel firstly submitted that from the materials on record it would appear that the petitioner had acted in a bona fide manner and thus she cannot be denied admission in M. D. Course. Mr Chakrabortty further submitted that the petitioner has a fundamental right of higher education and as Cl. 7 of the aforementioned Rule imposes an unreasonable restriction in pursuing higher studies, the same must be declared unconstitutional. The Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event as the Cl. 7 does not debar the petitioner from seeking admission in a different session and in view of the fact that the petitioner was admitted to the post graduate diploma course DTCD in the session 1993-95, there was no embargo on the part of the respondent authorities in granting her admission in M. D. (Tropical Examination) for the session 1994-97, which is a different session. ( 5 ) MR. Soumitra Sen, Learned Counsel appearing for the Calcutta University as also Mr. ( 5 ) MR. Soumitra Sen, Learned Counsel appearing for the Calcutta University as also Mr. A. P. Sircar Learned Counsel for the added respondent, on the other hand submitted that keeping in view the shortages of seats in the speciality and super speciality courses, Calcutta University had imposed aforementioned restrictions which must be held to be a reasonable one. It was further submitted that Cl. 7 of the Rules must be given a restrictive construction. ( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the matter on merits, it may be stated that one Dr. Md. Kamrujiaman, whose name appeared at serial No. 2 of the waiting list, has filed an application of getting himself impleaded as a party. Mr. Dawn, appearing on behalf of the said applicant, submitted that as the said applicant had a vital interest, he should be impleaded as a party. ( 7 ) MR. Chakrabortty for the petitioner opposed the said application. ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the fact that in the event this application succeeds, the aforementioned Dr. Md. Kamrujiman shall be seriously prejudiced, he is directed to be added as a party. It may be stated that the said respondent has already filed an affidavit-in-opposition to which an affidavit-in-apply has also been filed and in that view of the matter, that the petitioner will not be prejudiced at all if the aforementioned Dr. Md. Kamrujiaman is added as a party-respondent and it is directed accordingly. Cl. 7 of the General Information, (1994), as contained in Annexure 'f' to the writ petition reads thus : "7. Those undergoing any other Diploma/degree courses including Ph. D. are not eligible for admission in the same session. " the question, which arises for consideration in this application, is as to what of the words "same session" imply. ( 9 ) IT is now a well settled principle of law that an instrument has to be considered as a whole. The aforementioned General Information, as contained in Annexure 'f' to the writ application, contains relevant rules for admission of candidates to different post graduate medical degree and diploma courses of the Calcutta University, Cl. 7 appears in paragraph III of the said Rules containing other procedural directives and informations. The aforementioned General Information, as contained in Annexure 'f' to the writ application, contains relevant rules for admission of candidates to different post graduate medical degree and diploma courses of the Calcutta University, Cl. 7 appears in paragraph III of the said Rules containing other procedural directives and informations. ( 10 ) THERE cannot be any doubt nor has it been denied or disputed that the words "same session" would include such session in which a student is undergoing his Course of studies and thus the whole session shall include the part thereof. ( 11 ) IT is true that the petitioner was admitted in diploma course for 1993-95 session, but there cannot be any doubt that 1994 would also be included therein and thus during the same session she cannot be admitted in the degree course in terms of the aforementioned Rule. ( 12 ) IN fact, the petitioner also must be held to have understood the meaning of the session in the same manner, inasmuch as had it not been so, she would not have made out a case of submission of resignation even prior to appearance at the entrance examination. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the contention of Mr. Chakrabortty cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) SO far as the contention of the Learned Counsel to the effect that Cl. 7 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the same also cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) IN Unni Krishnan J. F. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , 1993 SC 2178, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel, it has been held that only the children upto the age of 14 years have fundamental rights in matter of education in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Nobody, thus in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) can claim any fundamental rights for undergoing studies in speciality or super speciality courses. It is not disputed that the competition for admission in the super speciality courses is tough as the numbers of the seat are limited. The University, therefore, cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in imposing a restriction on the students pursuing two courses of studies simultaneously. It is not disputed that the competition for admission in the super speciality courses is tough as the numbers of the seat are limited. The University, therefore, cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in imposing a restriction on the students pursuing two courses of studies simultaneously. ( 15 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that the State also spends a lot of amount over the education of the students reading in speciality and super speciality courses. The State, admittedly, pays stipend to the students concerned. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, Cl. 7 of the General Information cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational so as to attract the wrath of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in this case, the Secretary, Faculty Council for Post Graduate Studies and Medicine of the College has also submitted a report pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bijitendra Mohan Mitra. The said report has been submitted upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner also gave her statements before him which had been reduced to writing. She had also handed over another statement which had also been taken into consideration. In the said report, it was stated as follows :"dr. Mousumi Nandi was admitted in D. T. C. D. course for the session 1993, and was placed at Calcutta Medical College. The class started from May, 1993 and continued till 31st July, 1993. From first August, 1993, she stayed in the Hospital Quarter as a resident house physician. Dr. Nandi stated that she submitted her resignation letter to the Principal, Calcutta Medical College on 1st February, 1994 and the application form for admission to post-graduate medical degree/diploma courses 1994 was submitted on 2nd February, 1994 to our office. It will be very much obvious from the said form that she was not registered for any post-graduate diploma course of any University and she has not applied for admission or admitted to any other courses in any institution during this session. "it was further stated :"it is true that Dr. Nandi had taken admission in the D. T. C. D. course for the session 1993. According to Dr. Nandi, she had resigned with effect from 1st February, 1994. The University authority received a complaint from Dr. "it was further stated :"it is true that Dr. Nandi had taken admission in the D. T. C. D. course for the session 1993. According to Dr. Nandi, she had resigned with effect from 1st February, 1994. The University authority received a complaint from Dr. Maniruzman Kamal bearing Roll No. 040263 by a letter dated 28th April, 1994. It was alleged in the said letter that Dr. Mousumi Nandi, bearing Roll No. 040313 has suppressed the fact that she is a student of D. T. C. D. of Calcutta Medical College. After receipt of the said letter on 28th April, 1994, I requested Dr. Nandi to come to my office for the purpose of verification of some statements made by Dr. Nandi. Dr. Nandi received the said letter on 29th April, 1994 at about 12. 40 p. m. and thereafter this writ petition was moved and the Hon'ble High Court directed to give her a hearing and submit a report. It has to be seen whether Dr. Nandi resigned from Calcutta Medical College with effect from 1st February, 1994. I have received a letter bearing Memo No. PG/94-95/1729 dated 5th May, 1994, issued by the Principal, Medical College, Calcutta. It clearly states that no resignation letter was submitted by Dr. Nandi and she is absenting herself from 8th April, 1994. Dr. Nandi stated in course of hearing on 5th May, 1994, that she did not know whether the resignation letter was accepted and whether her studentship ceased from that date. She further admitted that no intimation was sent to Faculty Council for post-graduate studies in Medicine and no resignation letter was submitted to this office. In the copy of the resignation letter submitted by her there is no mention of the earlier resignation and the date in which the earlier letter was submitted. I have examined ail the records carefully and I am of the opinion that Dr. Nandi did not resign on 1st February, 1994 from the D. T. C. D. course and as such pursuant to the Clause 7 of the General Information she could not be allowed to take admission in the present course. " ( 16 ) IT is their evident that even the purported letter of such resignation submitted by the petitioner, has been held to be not above suspicion. " ( 16 ) IT is their evident that even the purported letter of such resignation submitted by the petitioner, has been held to be not above suspicion. ( 17 ) IT is now well known that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is not concerned with the merit of the decision but is only entitled to scrutinise the decision making process. ( 18 ) MR Chakrabortty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petition, has forcefully submitted that the Secretary has not taken into consideration the circumstances in which the petitioner submitted her resignations one after the other as has been explained in writ application. ( 19 ) HE further submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was married on 29. 4. 94, the situation, as stated in the letter of resignation, has completely changed. The submission of the Learned Counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The findings arrive at by the Secretary is a finding of fact. No mala fide or bias on the part of the said authority bas been alleged. Mr. Chakrabortty then contended that keeping in view the fact that various other students in similar situation had obtained admission in the degree course and thus there does not appear any reason why the petitioner should be discriminated against. According to the Learned Counsel, the allegations made by the petitioner in her writ application as also in her affidavit-in-reply have not been specifically controverted. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University, however, appeared to be correct in his submission that even if the submissions of Mr. Chakrabortty is accepted, this Court cannot direct the authority to admit the petitioner in M. D. Course for alleged violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution envisages equal protection of law and thus even if some other candidates have been admitted in violation of Rule 7 of the General Information, the same, in my opinion, does not give the petitioner any right to obtain a writ or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner. Article 14 of the Constitution envisages equal protection of law and thus even if some other candidates have been admitted in violation of Rule 7 of the General Information, the same, in my opinion, does not give the petitioner any right to obtain a writ or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner. It is now well known principle that neither any illegality can be directed to be perpetuated by a court of law nor any shelter under Article 14 of the Constitution can be claimed in such a case. For the foregoing reasons it must be held that there is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this Judgment on the usual undertaking. Application dismissed.