Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1060 (MP)

Geetika Sharma v. Director, Medical Education

2003-09-04

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT In this petition, petitioner has challenged the admission of respondent No.4, Vikas Kumar Mishra to the B.D.S. Course in Govt. Autonomous Dental College, Indore and prayed for its cancellation and allotment of his seat to the petitioner in place of the respondent No.4. The following facts are not in dispute before me that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were candidates for the Pre-Medical Test conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal which was held in the year 2001. The petitioner belongs to unreserved category and to Sainik class. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 were alloted roll Nos. 635467 and 628579 respectively. After the test the petitioner was placed at waiting list No. 13 whereas the respondent No.4 was placed at waiting list No.8. While the petitioner's father was an ex-military person domiciled at Indore, Madhya Pradesh, the father of respondent No.4 is an in-service military personal. The petitioner was called for counseling on 12.6.2002 at M.G. Medical College, Bhopal. Undisputably, on that date one MBBS seat in R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain and one BDS seat in Autonomous Dental College, Indore were available for allotment. The MBBS seat was alloted to the candidate who was at waiting list No. 7 and the BDS seat was alloted to the respondent No.4, Vikas Mishra, who is the son of Nagendra Nath Mishra, who is in-service military personal, Sainik No. 8372517-M from Army Postal Service, 36 Divisional, Postal Unit. As per rules such an in-service military personal was also required to submit domicile of Madhya Pradesh from 1.1.2001 upto the date of admission. The domicile certificate in such a case has required to be signed and issued by the concerned Commanding Officer in the prescribed proforma as per the Rules of Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules, 2001. The petitioner challenged the certificate of domicile submitted by respondent No. 4 on the grounds that the same was not issued by the competant Commanding Officer and the father of the petitioner was not posted in Madhya Pradesh till the date of admission. As per the submission of the petitioner date of admission is the actual date of admission and as per the respondents it is the date of submitting admission form for particular examination and course. As per the submission of the petitioner date of admission is the actual date of admission and as per the respondents it is the date of submitting admission form for particular examination and course. It is not in dispute that the certificate (Annexure G-1) on record is the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4 and the letters dated 26.10.2002 and 9.10.2002 are the explanations issued by the Director, Sainik Welfare, M.P., according to which it is clear that Nagendra Mishra is the father of respondent No.4, Vikas Mishra, and upto 3.5.2002 he was posted in M.P. as per Annexure G-1. From the letter dated 16.9.2002 issued by Lt. Col. 36 Infentry Division, it is clear that Sepoy Nagendra Mishra was posted to 36 Infentry Division, Postal Unit w.e.f. 28.2.1999 to 3.5.2002 (31.5.2002). Respondent No.3, Principal has filed return denying the claim of the petitioner and justifying the admission given to respondent No.4, Vikas Mishra. Admittedly, father of respondent No.4 was posted in M.P. from, 28.2.1999 to 3.5.2002 (31.5.2002) and the PMT examinations were held in the month of March, 2001. In this petition the case of the petitioner is based only on the ground that on the date of actual admission i.e. on 18.6.2002 the father of the respondent No.4 was not posted in M.P. and he was transferred after May, 2002. Therefore, it was submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Admission Rules, 2001 the petitioner was not entitled for admission. It has been contended before me that initially the counseling was fixed in the months of March-April 2002, but it was cancelled on account of the stay order obtained by some students from the High Court at Jabalpur. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that when he applied and appeared in the examination and his result was declared and the first counseling was scheduled to be held in March-April, 2001, his father was posted in M.P. and in the month of June, 2002 when the postponed counselling was held his father was transferred to some other place. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that on the date of admission i.e. on 18.6.2002 the father of respondent No.4 was not posted in M.P. and was transferred on 31.5.2002, therefore, the admission of the respondent No.4 is not in accordance with the rules and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that on the date of admission i.e. on 18.6.2002 the father of respondent No.4 was not posted in M.P. and was transferred on 31.5.2002, therefore, the admission of the respondent No.4 is not in accordance with the rules and is liable to be set aside. In reply learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that till the date of first counselling the father of respondent No.4 was posted in M.P. and if there was delay on account of some reason in the counselling the-admission of the respondent No.4 Vikas Mishra cannot be treated as illegal or contrary to the rules and submitted that the respondent No.4 has tightly been given admission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after perusal of the record and after considering the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. In the matter of military personnel and employees of the central government and those who are occupying transferable post through out the country, the date of admission of the students cannot be considred as the actual date of admission but the date of admission has to be considered on the date when he applied for admission and submitted application form as per the advertisements because after filing the application the employees may be transferred to other States and in that case the students admission cannot be cancelled on the ground that he has lost the domicile of that particular State. Otherwise in such a case the children of such Central Govt. employees cannot get admission in any State in India. When a cut of date for submitting admission form has been mentioned in the rules then that date has to be treated as a material date for this purpose. Otherwise in such a case the children of such Central Govt. employees cannot get admission in any State in India. When a cut of date for submitting admission form has been mentioned in the rules then that date has to be treated as a material date for this purpose. The facts of this case are very clear on the date of advertisement and on the date of submitting admission form and on the date on which the respondent No.4 had appeared for the examination and till the declaration of the result, the father of the respondent No.4 was posted in M.P. and even he remained posted till the first date of counselling but when the counselling was cancelled under the orders of the Court then it cannot be said that the respondent-student loses the character of domicile from that State. Normally, toe date of admission means the date mentioned in the advertisement for submitting the admission form or application for that purpose because transfer of an employee cannot be detrimental to the future of the children of the employees. Thus, on consideration of the facts and features of the case-and looking to the circumstances, I do not think that the admission of the respondent No.4 is illegal or contrary to the rules or he was not entitled for admission. The authorities have rightly admitted him and alloted the seat available in the waiting list. Thus, this petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs.