Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 502 (GUJ)

Patel Harsh Vikrambhai v. State of Gujarat

2009-07-24

AKIL KURESHI, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2009
Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—The petitioner has challenged validity of Rule 5(5) of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009 (here-in-after referred to as “the Admission Rules of 2009”) 2. The petitioner had appeared in the HSC examination in Gujarat Board in the year 2008. He also appeared in the Common Entrance Test referred to as GUJCET conducted in the same year. On the basis of his combined performance in the said two examinations, he could secure admission in Government Physiotherapy College in August 2008. He once again appeared in the GUJCET examination conducted in the year 2009. It is his case that on the basis of his improved performance in the GUJCET in the year 2009, he would have been in a position to secure admission in a better course such as MBBS. On account of Government policy, since he had already secured admission in the previous year, he is however, not qualified for admission till the duration of course in which he has secured admission is over. 3. Rule 5 of the Admission Rules 2009 provides for eligibility for admission. It provides inter alia that a student who has passed qualifying examination with “B group” or “AB-group” from the Gujarat Board or Central Board and who has appeared in Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year, would be eligible to seek admission in Medical and Para-medical courses. Rule 5 (5) however, provides as under : “5(5). A candidate who has secured admission under these rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. It is the case of the petitioner that the said provision is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Shri Amit Panchal argued that simply because the petitioner secured admission in the previous year, he cannot be debarred from applying afresh this year on the basis of his improved performance in the GUJCET examination. He submitted that the rule discriminates between similarly situated students. It was contended that Rules were framed in the year 2009 whereas the petitioner had already secured admission in the year 2008. The petitioner was allowed to sit in GUJCET of 2009. He submitted that the rule discriminates between similarly situated students. It was contended that Rules were framed in the year 2009 whereas the petitioner had already secured admission in the year 2008. The petitioner was allowed to sit in GUJCET of 2009. Respondents would be therefore estopped from enforcing the Rules qua the petitioner. 5. Validity of several provisions of the Admission Rules of 2009 had come up before us in a group of petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5599/2009 and connected matters. The group was disposed of by a common judgement dated 8.7.2009. The students of 2008-2009 batch had approached this Court and one of the facets of the challenge contained therein was that the Admission Rules of 2009 permitted students of previous years also to apply for admission this year to various professional courses and such policy was illegal. We had however, by the said judgement dated 8.7.2009 upheld the Rules. One of the aspects which we had taken into consideration while turning down the challenge was that the students of previous years who had secured admissions in any of the courses, would not be eligible for admission in the current year till the course was completed and thereby ensuring that seats to professional courses occupied by the students would not lapse. 6. We further find that nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner to demonstrate how the Rule is arbitrary or discriminatory. It applies to a homogeneous class namely, those students who had previously secured admissions in various courses. They are disqualified from securing admission in the current year till the period for the course is completed. This in fact ensures against lapsing of seats occupied by such students. Such students cannot equate themselves with other students of their batch who did not take admissions to any of the professional courses. They form a different and distinct class. 7. Counsel for the petitioner is also not correct in contending that since the petitioner had secured admission in the year 2008, such Rules made in the Admission Rules of 2009, would be hit by the principles of estoppal. In the Admission Rules of 2008 also, identical provision was made in Rule 5(6) of the said Rules. 7. Counsel for the petitioner is also not correct in contending that since the petitioner had secured admission in the year 2008, such Rules made in the Admission Rules of 2009, would be hit by the principles of estoppal. In the Admission Rules of 2008 also, identical provision was made in Rule 5(6) of the said Rules. In-fact it is this provision contained in the Admission Rules of 2008, which would debar the petitioner and similar other students from qualifying in the current academic year and not Rule 5(5) of the Admission Rules of 2009. Both Rules provide that a candidate who has secured admission “under these Rules” shall not be eligible for further admission to any course till the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. The petitioner has not secured admission under the Admission Rules of 2009 but under the Admission Rules of 2008. 8. It is thus clear that when the petitioner in August 2008 secured admission in Physiotherapy course, Rule 5(6) of the Admission Rules of 2008 clearly provided that he shall not be eligible for further admission to any course till the period for the Physiotherapy Course was completed. With clear understanding and eyes wide open, he secured admission. He did not challenge the Rules at the relevant time but waited for one full year to be completed. He cannot now insist on being granted admission only on the ground that he was permitted to appear in GUJCET examination for the year 2009. From the Rules itself, it was amply clear that he was not qualified for admission to MBBS and other Para-medical courses. 9. In the result, we find no merit in the petition. Same is required to be dismissed. However, to avoid any confusion in future so that students may not carry false hopes, the Government should consider whether in some manner in the application forms for the Entrance Test or otherwise it should be indicated that such students would not be qualified for specified courses. 10. Subject to above observations, the petition is dismissed.