Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 111 (JHR)

Harsh Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-02-05

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner. Harsh Singh has prayed inter alia for quashing the order dated 3.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, as contained at Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder, the Chief of Medical Services of M/s. B.C.C.L. has been informed that no B.C.C.L. quota exists for nomination of candidates to the M.B.B.S. course in the Pataliputra Medical College. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure-1. which is a newspaper notice published on or about 28.12.2001, whereby and whereunder, it was informed that the two seals which were meant for B.B.C.L. should be created to be reserved for a most backward candidate and a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 2. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a direction upon the Principal of the college in question to admit him on the reserved seat for a nominee of the B.C.C.L. and prohibiting him from appearing any student on the reserved B.C.C.L. quota. 3. According to petitioner, for admission in medical college under the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, applications were invited from eligible candidates having minimum qualification of Intermediate In Science with Biology. The candidates applied and along with forms, prospectus was supplied to them. The said prospectus has been brought on record by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 and 3/1. On receipt of the prospectus, the petitioner filled up the forms and filed an application in the month of June, 2001 vide Application No. 20904. 4. The petitioner claims himself to be the son of an employee of the B.C.C.L. his father being a doctor in the Central Hospital owned by the B.C.C.L. at Dhanbad. 5. The petitioner has also stated that in July, 2001 the Controller of Examination (Respondent No. 3) took written examination of the candidates including the petitioner and in the meantime the petitioners father also filed an application on or about 14.8.2001 requesting for his sons admission on one of the seats meant for the nominees of B.C.C.L. According to the petitioner, the Chief of Medical Services, Central Hospital, M/s. B.C.C.L., Dhanbad also requested the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare to inform him of the steps to be taken in relation to the admission of such candidates who were B.C.C.L. nominees. After all these were done, the petitioner stated that all of a sudden on 3.12.2001 the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Respondent No. 2) issued the impugned letter wherein he stated that an agreement had been made for a period of five years w.e.f. 4-9-88, according towhich two candidates were nominated by M/s. B.C.C.L. till 1997. He also stated that no fresh agreement has been made after lapse of five years and P.M.C.H. had stopped sending students for clinical teaching in Central Hospital, Dhanbad since the college got recognition on the basis of increased bed strength. He also stated that no student had been nominated by the B.C.C.L. after 1997. In conclusion the respondent No. 2 stated that no B.C.C.L. quota exists for nomination of candidates to the M.B.B.S. course. 6. After the aforesaid letter was issued on 3.12.2001, the respondents published a notice in the newspaper on 28.12.2001 informing that cut of two seats which had been earlier reserved for the nominees of B.C.C.L., one should be treated to be reserved for a most backward community candidate and the other for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case both on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as also on behalf of respondent No. 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have inter alia stated at paragraphs 10 and 11 that "it is, however, a matter of fact that the petitioner made application of his own on 14.8.2001 requesting for admission of his son in the college against the quota of M/s. B.C.C.L. It is stated that no other employee of B.C.C.L. could apply as no notice in this regard was advertised by the authorities of M/s. B.C.C.L. in Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad has been discontinued from 1988." In para 11 respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have stated inter alia that the Principal, Pataliputra Medical College has sought for "policy guideline relating to admission of two candidates in Pataliputra Medical College and Hospital in M.B.B.S. course nominated by M/s. B.C.C.L. and not for the admission of the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner." 8. Respondence Nos. 5 and 6 have stated inter alia that the Principal, Pataliputra Medical College has sought for "policy guideline relating to admission of two candidates in Pataliputra Medical College and Hospital in M.B.B.S. course nominated by M/s. B.C.C.L. and not for the admission of the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner." 8. Respondence Nos. 1 to 4 have also filed a counter affidavit wherein they have stated at para 6 that an agreement had been executed in the year 1988 between the Additional Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar and the Director (Personnel) B.C.C.L. wherein at Clause 6 thereof it was stated that "in lieu of facilities provided for clinical teaching and training at the Central Hospital the existing arrangement of admitting of two nominee of B.C.C.L. of Coal India Limited to the Pataliputra Medical College on payment of tuition fees and other charges as applicable provided they qualify the other condition for admission to the College, as per Rules, shall be continued." 9. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also stated that this agreement was for a period of five years or, till such time that the college has its own hospital functioning and adequate for the clinical teaching and training of students. At para 8 they have further stated that the Principal, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad had informed vide his letter dated 28.6.2001 that the college authority was not using the college hospital of B.C.C.L. for Clinical teaching or training purpose and that the required need of college is being satisfied by its own hospital and SSLNT hospital. They have also stated that since no student was nominated for B.C.C.L. after 1997 and since there was no fresh agreement after a lapse of five years no B.C.C.L. quota existed any more. 10. The argument of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the effect that no B.C.C.L. quota exists in view of the aforesaid contention is fit to be rejected. 10. The argument of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the effect that no B.C.C.L. quota exists in view of the aforesaid contention is fit to be rejected. Let me first deal with the agreement which, according to respondents, lapsed after a period of five years is a misnomer because at para 52 it has been stated that Coal India Limited had agreed to the rearrangement of utilisation of Central Hospital, Dhanbad and extend facilities of Clinical teaching and training of students of P.M.C.H., Dhanbad without influencing in any manner the normal working of the hospital for a period of five years or till such time that the college has exits own hospital. This does not mean that the agreement was made for a fixed period of five years. On the contrary at page 53 of the writ petition it has been stated at Clause 4 thereof that "in lieu of the facilities provided for clinical teaching and training at the Central Hospital the existing arrangement of admitting two nominees of the B.C.C.L. of Coal India to the Pataliputra Medical College on payment of tuition fees and other charges as applicable provided they satisfy other condition for admission to the college, as per rule, shall be continued." (Emphasis mine) 11. The aforesaid clause of the agreement insofar as admitting two nominees of B.C.C.L. must therefore be deemed to be a subsisting agreement. 12. Apart from the aforesaid it will be seen from the prospectus brought on record vide Annexure-3 that at Clause 15.3 thereof there is a stipulation that the approval of the Government of Jharkhand shall be necessary for nominees of Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, TISCO, SSLNT and Government of India sponsored nominees. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument drew my attention to a Division Bench judgment passed in CWJC No. 690/89 (R) (Shree Shree Laxmi Narayan Trust and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) disposed of on 24.2.98. In that case prayer of M/s. Shree Shree Laxmi Narayan Trust (SSLNT) inter alia was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to honour the right of the Trust to admit three students nominated by it in the M.B.B.S. course as was being done till 1987. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) disposed of on 24.2.98. In that case prayer of M/s. Shree Shree Laxmi Narayan Trust (SSLNT) inter alia was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to honour the right of the Trust to admit three students nominated by it in the M.B.B.S. course as was being done till 1987. At para 7 of the said judgment the Honble Division Bench has stated that until and unless the State Government takes a firm decision in respect to sponsorship of candidates of all the three institutions the petitioner can not be discriminated and the candidates sponsored by it can be refused admission in the college. 14. In the instant case the prospectus at page 35 clearly indicates the intention/promise/indication to honour the nominees of (a) Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, TISCO, (b) SSLNT and (c) Government of India sponsored nominees. Clause 5 of the agreement at page 53 also indicates that the process shall be continued. This is a clear indication that the two seats meant for B.C.C.L. shall continue to be available. 15. In the face of these documents there is no justification for the respondent No. 2 (Commissioner-Com-Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Government of Jharkhand) to mechanically say that the B.C.C.L. quota does not exist. Additionally there is also no justification as to why there should be discrimination and only nominees of M/s. B.C.C.L. should be singled out and benefits given to the other (i.e. the ones indicated at page 35 of the writ petition). The respondent No. 1 can not also upset an agreement entered into between the Chairman, Coal India Limited and Government of India through its Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Research to the prejudice of one of the parties of that agreement. 16. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3.12.2001 as contained at Annexure-2 and the notice as contained at Annexure-1 are set aside. Respondents are directed to admit the petitioner on the reserved seat of the nominee of M/s. B.C.C.L. 17. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.