Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 81 (MP)

Pragya Sharma v. State of M. P.

2003-01-14

ARUN MISHRA

body2003
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner in WP 6263/2000, Ku. Pragya Sharma has claimed the benefit of conversion of her seat from payment seat to free seat in accordance with her merit as per Rule 2.5.3.1. and Rule 2.5.3.2. of the rules called "Admission Rules to the Three Years MCA Course 1999-2000. 2. Petitioner submits that she was admitted in MCA against 1st payment seat and paid Rs. 33,200/- on 25-10-1999. As per rule 2.5.3. if a student selected against a free seat, does not appear or leaves the College, or if the free seat for reasons whatsoever, falls vacant, then the free seat shall be filled up by giving an admission to a student selected in a payment seat on merit basis. Petitioner submits that one Ku. Smita Mishra who was selected in free seat did not join and said free seat fell vacant. Petitioner applied for free seat on 9-12-1999; besides submitting application A/3, reminder A/4 was also submitted and followed with another representation A/5. Out of 40 seats, 20 seats were free seats and 20 are payment seats, College sent wrong information as to free seats and payment seats to State. Petitioner claims conversion from payment seat to the free seat in accordance with her entitlement as per rules. Hence the writ petition has been filed failing to obtain redressal of the grievance at the hands of respondents. 3. In the return filed by respondents 1 and 2 State of M.P. and Director, it is contended that respondent No. 2 considering the case of the petitioner advised the Principal-respondent No. 3 to take action to convert seat so that matter does not travel to the Court. Another communication R/2 dated 9th August, 2001 has been placed on record issued by Director of Technical Education to the effect that Ku. Pragya Sharma be accommodated against the free seat and the fees realised from her be refunded. 4. In the return filed by respondent No. 3 it is contended that this Court had passed an interim order on 3-8-2001 giving interim relief to the effect that "petitioner will not be compelled to deposit the fees relating to payment seat." Director has also passed an order on 9th August, 2001 permitting transfer of the petitioner from payment seat to free seat with retrospective effect. This order R/2 has been assailed separately in WP 5171/2001. 5. Rule 2.5.3.1. and 2.5.3.2. This order R/2 has been assailed separately in WP 5171/2001. 5. Rule 2.5.3.1. and 2.5.3.2. are relevant, the rule reads thus: Bare reading of rule 2.5.3.1. and 2.5.3.2 makes it clear that in case any of the free seat falls vacant that has to be occupied by a student given admission in the institution on the basis of merit on payment seat. Rule 2.5.3.2. gives the right to a student admitted against the payment seat to get it converted on the basis of merit; in case free seat has fallen vacant in the institution concerned provided that student is bona fide resident of M.P. 6. This is not in dispute that petitioner is a bona fide resident of M.P., thus, being occupier of the first payment seat as per merit has the right to be accommodated against vacant free seat, respondent No. 3 has been rightly advised by the respondent No. 2/Director to give the admission and convert the seat that ought to have been done in accordance with the rules when representation was submitted in December, 1999. Director has also advised in January to the institution to take action to convert seat and avoid litigation. In spite of the entitlement of the petitioner she was not given free seat; she has been made to rush to this Court. Thus, it is held that respondents wrongfully deprived the petitioner to get the conversion from payment seat to free seat and whatever fee deposited by her she is entitled for refund including that deposited in the year 1999 in case the same has not been refunded so far. 7. Coming to the WP No. 5171/2001, order P/1 = R/2 in WP 6263/2000 issued by the Director on 9th August, 2001 has been questioned by the College Guru Ramdas Khalsa Institute of Science and Technology (MCA). In my opinion, in view of the discussion made above and the rules 2.5.3.1. and 2.5.3.2, the order P/1=R/2 in WP 6263/2000 dated 9th August, 2001 is in accordance with the rules and the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 8. Second relief prayed by the petitioner is that action should be taken by the Director timely. In that regard suffice it to observe that rules provide for time frame and action has to be taken with due diligence by the Director and the Institution both. 9. 8. Second relief prayed by the petitioner is that action should be taken by the Director timely. In that regard suffice it to observe that rules provide for time frame and action has to be taken with due diligence by the Director and the Institution both. 9. Resultantly, WP 6263/2000 is allowed and WP 5171/2001 is dismissed. Costs of the petition WP No. 6263/2000 are quantified at Rs. 3,000/-; Rs. 1,500/-to be borne by respondent No. 3 and Rs. 1,500/- by State and the cost imposed during pendency of the writ petition are also required to be paid. Let the costs be paid within three months.