Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 239 (HP)

ANKUSH MITTAL v. H. P. UNIVERSITY

2001-09-14

A.K.GOEL, C.K.THAKKER

body2001
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.:- Petitioner sat in common entrance test conducted by Himachal Pradesh University on behalf of Himachal Pradesh Government for admission to the professional course of different colleges located in the-State of Himachal Pradesh during the year 2000- 2001. In the present writ petition we are concerned’ with the admission to B.D.S. Course in the said Session. 2. As per petitioner, B.D.S. Course is of five years duration. There are three colleges in the State, namely, Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, and the other two colleges Himachal Dental College, Sundernagar and M.N.D.A.V. College, Dental College Dental, Solan are private. All these three colleges are affiliated to Respondent No. 1-University. It is admitted case of all the parties that after holding of examination by Respondent No. 1-University, on the basis of merit as well as in terms of the conditions contained in the prospectus, candidates are Sponsored for counselling in accordance with law to different colleges. In the present writ petition, grievance is made by the petitioner against Annexure P-5 an admission notice for payment seats. For ready reference notice is extracted herein below: "HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY Summer Hill, Shimla-171005 "ENTRANCE TESTS CELL" ADMISSION NOTICE FOR PAYMENT SEATS IN BDS COURSE 2000-2001 Non Himachal candidates with 10+2 Science (Medical Group) with minimum 50% aggregate marks in PCB with English as a qualifying subject having completed age of 17 years but not crossed 25 years of age on 31.12.2000 and who are interested to seek admission against the nine payment Seats in BDS Course in MN DAV Dental College, Dental (Solan)(H.P.) may apply on plain paper to the Principal of the said college up to 22.11.2000. Prescribed fee is Rs.75,000/- p.a. For more details with regard to Security etc. candidates may contact the Principal on Phone No.01792- 52571. Necessary counselling for these seats will be held in the College premises on 23.11.2000 at 10.30 A.M. for which candidates should bring all the required certificates in original personally. (S.C. Dohroo) Addl. Controller of Examination" 3. Case as set up by the petitioner against this notification is that doors have been shut for Himachal students against these seats, which is discriminatory. This advertisement was issued contrary to the decision in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1993(1) SCC 645. (S.C. Dohroo) Addl. Controller of Examination" 3. Case as set up by the petitioner against this notification is that doors have been shut for Himachal students against these seats, which is discriminatory. This advertisement was issued contrary to the decision in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1993(1) SCC 645. Another ground urged in support of this writ petition at the time of hearing was that all candidates have been placed equally and at the same time Himachal candidates are debarred. Such an action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be strick down. 4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 22.11.2000 following order was passed in the presence of learned counsel for respondent, No. l as its service was waived on behalf of the said respondent: 22.11.2000"Present: Mr. Praneet Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mittal, counsel for Respondent No. l . CMPNo.l547of2000 Granted. C.W.P. No. 896 of 2000 Notice as to admission as well as for final hearing returnable after three weeks. Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. C.M.P. No. 1548 of 2000 Notice returnable after three weeks. Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. l. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if we grant interim relief that let the counselling go on but no final order regarding admission be given by the respondents till further orders. Copy dasti on usual charges. Sd/- (C.K. Thakker), C.J. Sd/- (Kuldip Chand Sood), J." 5. What seems to have happened is that counselling was undertaken by Respondent No.2 on the basis of the list furnished by Respondent No. 1 University on 23.11.2000 and they recommended for admission in order of mert 9 candidates against the aforesaid 9 seats and another list of 11 candidates in order of merit was prepared as waiting list. Original register produced by Mr. J.L. Kashyap showing the minutes of counselling undertaken on 23.11.2000 indicates that in all 63 candidates were counselled by the Counselling Committee. This counselling process started at 10.30 A.M. and register was closed at 2 P.M. as no other candidate was available. 6. Here another grievance of the petitioner needs to be noted. Original register produced by Mr. J.L. Kashyap showing the minutes of counselling undertaken on 23.11.2000 indicates that in all 63 candidates were counselled by the Counselling Committee. This counselling process started at 10.30 A.M. and register was closed at 2 P.M. as no other candidate was available. 6. Here another grievance of the petitioner needs to be noted. According to him, respondent No. l was well aware about the order having been passed. According to petitioner Courts order was conveyed to the superintendent of respondent No.2. He claimed to have reached on 23.11.2000 at 12 Noon but was not allowed to enter the Principals Room on the pretext that counselling is in the process and no body can be allowed to go inside Repeated requests were made to the Superintendent to receive the copy of the court order and pass on the same to Respondet No.2 so that he can avail its benefit. Superintendent is stated to have flatly refused to receive the orders and insisted that the Principal being a party was only competent to receive the same. 7. In the aforesaid background according to the petitioner the court order was received by Principal at 2.30 P.M. Thus the Principal and S.C. Dohroo, Additional Controller of Examinations acted in post haste manner which was in utter violation of the court order to defeat the same. They were guilty of having committed contempt of court. In this behalf it may be observed that Dr. Chander Kumar Aggarwal has filed the affidavit, that after counselling was over, list was displayed and successful candidates deposited the fee by 2.30 P.M. when the order was received through some messenger by the Superintendent of the office. With a view to support this submission, original register was produced as noted hereinabove and according to him no disrespect or disobedience has been shown by him. Similarly, Mr. Deen Dayal Gupta, Superintendent of respondent No.2 College has stated that petitioner did not turn up in the college premises at 12 Noon as stated by him in his rejoinder. According to him the court order was sent by the petitioner through someone which reached office at 2.30 P.M. Immediately, thereafter receipt was given, noting down time and date. Other averments made in the rejoinder were denied specifically. 8. Here the stand of the respondent No. 1 may also be noted. According to him the court order was sent by the petitioner through someone which reached office at 2.30 P.M. Immediately, thereafter receipt was given, noting down time and date. Other averments made in the rejoinder were denied specifically. 8. Here the stand of the respondent No. 1 may also be noted. According to Respondent No. 1, they have not violated the orders of the court. They have admitted that 9 seats under Non Himachali payment quota were advertised by the University and thereafter candidates were counselled by it on 23.11.2001 by respondent No.2 as recorded in the original register. According to it petitioner served the order of the court dated 22.11.2000 after the counselling was over at 2.30 P.M. on 23.11.2000. Thus respondent No.2 did not violate either decision in the case of Unni Krishnan supra or order of this Court dated 22.11.2000 or any other condition of prospectus. Therefore, they have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. Further stand of the University is that 9 payment seats were reserved for non Himachali candidates as per the orders of the Supreme Court in’ Interlocutory Application Nos. 25-27 in Writ Petition (C) 317 of 12993 and Interlocutory Application Nos. 24,41 A, 43-49 and 51-65 in Writ Petition (C) No.317 of 1993 passed on August 11,1995 and August 9, 1996 entitled "T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc.” They admitted that admissions have been made against 9 payment seats by respondent No.2 reserved for non Himachali Candidates. 9. Respondent No.2 in its reply stated that it has not committed any illegality and/or violated any order passed by either the Honble Supreme Court or this Court on 22.11.2000. Its consistent stand is that order was conveyed at 2.30 P.M. on 23.11.2000 after the counselling was over and selected candidates in response to Annexure P-5 had deposited the fee. Its further case is that it has rightly made admission against 9 payment seats for non Himachali candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination i.e. 10+2 with Science group 50% marks in the subject of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in aggregate and having passed English as elective subject. Thus they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, one fact is clear that the Session 2000-2001 is over. Thus they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, one fact is clear that the Session 2000-2001 is over. In view of the specific stand on the part of the respondents, we feel that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have added such candidates who have obtained lesser marks than him and had been admitted to the course in question during the relevant academic year. For reasons best known to him, petitioner did not add any such candidate as party. Here we may also note that in the event of success of this writ petition person with lesser marks than the petitioner has to go out. Such candidates cannot be affected by any order unless they are party. 11. At the same time by our order we cannot direct the creation of an additional seat for admitting the petitioner during the relevant year. Similarly direction cannot be issued to respondents to accommodate the petitioner during the admission in the current session. Reason being that chance of some other eligible candidate will be marred completely. 12. Then further question that arises for consideration is as to what relief can be given to him in this writ petition. 13. One thing is clear that respondent No. 1 had not intimated respondent No.2 College to admit the petitioner for counselling as ordered on 22.11.2000 supra. What ever the reason respondent No. 1, had made that order nugatory and there was no fault of the petitioner. 14. Any thing said on merits of the case qua the claim of the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances would be an exercise in futility, particularly when no effective relief can be given to him. In this behalf it may be noted that the writ petition becomes merely academic. 15. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire circumstances of this case, we feel that it was because of inaction/remissness on the part of respondent No. l that the interim order of the court dated 22.11.2000 could not be implemented and thus petitioner has been deprived of the admissible benefit to him in accordance with law. 15. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire circumstances of this case, we feel that it was because of inaction/remissness on the part of respondent No. l that the interim order of the court dated 22.11.2000 could not be implemented and thus petitioner has been deprived of the admissible benefit to him in accordance with law. Accordingly, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be well served if respondent No. 1 is burdened with compensation payable by it to the petitioner, which we quantify at Rs.20,000/-, reserving liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law for such relief as may be admissible to him. In such a situation, if petitioner is held entitled to any monetary relief, in that event sum of Rs.20,000/- as aforesaid shall be deducted there from. 16. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CMP No. 154 of 2000 In view of the disposal of the main case, interim order passed on 22.11.2000 is hereby vacated and the CMP also stands finally disposed of. 17. Original register produced by Shri J.L. Kashyap has been returned to him in Court.