Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 808 (MP)

ADRIJA SAXENA v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-07-03

RAJENDRA MENON

body2003
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. Petitioner, a candidate who had appeared in the Pre-Engineering Test, 2002 conducted by the respondent No. 2, impugns in this petition, the action of the respondents in rejecting her candidature to appear and seek admission in the category of Freedom Fighters. It is the case of the petitioner that after passing 10+2 examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, the petitioner a domicile of Madhya Pradesh submitted her application to appear in the Pre-Engineering Test conducted by the respondent No. 2, University. On the basis of a Freedom Fighter's certificate, Annexure P/3 dated 28-1-1995, issued to the petitioner, as she happened to be a grand-daughter of a Freedom Fighter, she had submitted her application to be considered in the class of freedom fighters category for admission. It is the case of the petitioner that she appeared did well in the examination and she was declared successful in the written examination and was called for counselling which was held on 7-8-2002, wherein the freedom fighters certificate issued to her from Raipur in the year 1995 was rejected on the ground that it is not admissible being not in the proforma prescribed. Indicating the same, she was not permitted to participate in the counselling in that category. Shri. R.A. Roman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted two fold argument in support of the petition. It was put forth by him that proforma 6 as prescribed under the Admission Rules in question and the certificate Annexure P/3 issued to the petitioner are identical in terms. There is no difference in the same. That apart, it is submitted by him that if the certificate was not in the correct proforma then the petitioner's right to participate in the examination should not have been rejected, but the petitioner could be considered as a general candidate. It has also been submitted by him that the certificate has been issued by the Collector, Raipur, which was within the State of Madhya Pradesh when the certificate was issued, and therefore, it is admissible for all purposes. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner is eligible to appear in the category of Freedom Fighters class and seek admission in the course in question. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner is eligible to appear in the category of Freedom Fighters class and seek admission in the course in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents having accepted the certificate when it was submitted along with admission form and when she was allowed to participate in the counselling, the respondents were estopped from taking a plea that the petitioner could not be granted admission in the category of freedom fighters. Per contra, Shri. K.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that in the P.E.T., P.A.T-2002 Rules, vide provisions of clause 2.3.4.2 prescribes that a freedom fighter has to be one who is issued with a certificate by a District Collector in the State of Madhya Pradesh in Form 6 in the prescribed register maintained by the District Collector. Thereafter, referring to provisions of clause 2.12.5, it is submitted by him that the State of Madhya Pradesh is one, which came into existence as on 1-11-2000 and not prior to that. According to him, after 1-11-2000, Raipur district does not come within the State of Madhya Pradesh, and therefore, a freedom fighter mentioned in the register maintained by District Collector, Raipur is not a freedom fighter in the State of Madhya Pradesh as envisaged in clause 2.3.4.2 of the rules in question. That being so, it is submitted by him that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the category of freedom fighter. As far as the contention of the petitioner that if her candidature was rejected in the category of freedom fighters, she was entitled to appear as a general candidate is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that a perusal of Annexure P/8 as contained at page 22 of the petition goes to show that the petitioner was declared not eligible in the freedom fighters category on the basis of the certificate produced by her. But, she was found eligible to appear in the Madhya Pradesh quota as an unreserved female candidate. The petitioner was not interested in seeking admission in the said category, therefore, the contention of the petitioner with regard to estoppel is unsustainable. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. But, she was found eligible to appear in the Madhya Pradesh quota as an unreserved female candidate. The petitioner was not interested in seeking admission in the said category, therefore, the contention of the petitioner with regard to estoppel is unsustainable. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the contention of the learned senior counsel to the effect that the petitioner is eligible to appear in the category of freedom fighters is concerned, the same is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The certificate of freedom fighter granted to the petitioner as contained in Annexure P/3 even if it has to be held to be covered under the proforma prescribed does not fulfil the requirements of clause 2.3.4.2 of the Admission Rules in question. The certificate has to be issued by a District Collector in the State of Madhya Pradesh in whose register the person is registered as a freedom fighter. State of Madhya Pradesh as defined in clause 2.12.5 is the State which came into existence after 1-11-2000. Admittedly, the certificate, Annexure P/3 is not issued by a Collector in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and therefore, the petitioner does not come in the category of a freedom fighter as envisaged in clause 2.3.4.2 of the Admission Rules. On that count, the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the category of freedom fighters. As far as the case of the petitioner with regard to action of the respondents in permitting her to appear in the examination and the ground of estoppel is concerned, a perusal of Annexure P/8 indicates that after petitioner's candidature in the category of freedom fighters was rejected, she was found eligible to appear as a unreserved female candidate in the quota fixed for the Madhya Pradesh. The records indicate that the petitioner received original documents and draft and left the premises. Even, from Annexure P/7 at page 20 of the petition, it is seen that the petitioner was found eligible in the category of unreserved candidate. But it seems that she was not interested, therefore, obtained the documents and demand draft. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the category of unreserved female candidates, persons who had got lesser marks than the petitioner have been allotted seats and her case is ignored. There is no such averment or contention in the petition. But it seems that she was not interested, therefore, obtained the documents and demand draft. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the category of unreserved female candidates, persons who had got lesser marks than the petitioner have been allotted seats and her case is ignored. There is no such averment or contention in the petition. That being so, it is to be held that by accepting her application and permitting her to appear in the examination as a candidate in the category of freedom fighter and consequently disallowing in the said category at the time of counselling, no prejudice was caused to her as the respondents had treated her as unreserved female candidate of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner herself was not interested in seeking admission against the said category. Therefore, the question of estoppel is of no consequence. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no ground for interfering in the matter. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as devoid of substance. Final Result : Dismissed