Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 97 (JHR)

Yamini Santosh Awasthi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-18

SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
ORDER : Sushil Harkauli, J. On 20.11.2009, the following order was passed in this case: “The petitioner appeared for the entrance test for M.B.B.S. course. According to her rank, she was entitled to be admitted and was called for counseling in 3rd round. Unfortunately, the petitioner or her guardian was not careful enough in reading the prospectus, and instead of the prescribed domicile certificate of the S.D.O., the petitioner went for counseling with a domicile certificate issued by the Circle Officer. For want of domicile certificate from the proper authority, i.e. S.D.O. or Deputy Commissioner, the certificate of an inferior authority, i.e. Circle Officer, was not honoured, and the petitioner was denied counseling and consequent admission. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained the domicile certificate from the proper authority, i.e. the S.D.O., but by that time the counseling was already over. It has been stated in the writ petition that 10 seats are still vacant and they could be filled up for the said course. Considering the fact that the petitioner was eligible and would have got admission if she had appeared with the domicile certificate issued by the S.D.O., and also considering the fact that now she is in possession of the said domicile certificate, and also considering the position that leaving seats for professional courses unfilled is a dead loss and of no benefit to anybody, an interim direction is issued that if the above averments of the petitioner are correct, the domicile certificate may be examined and if it is valid and proper, the petitioner may be granted admission to the course. This order will be available for the benefit of the petitioner only if the petitioner appears along with a certified copy of this order and the domicile certificate before the respondent No. 4 within 10 days from today and not beyond that. “A counter affidavit may be filed, if necessary, within a month. List thereafter. 2. The respondents have moved Interlocutory Application No. 4065 of 2009 seeking modification of that order. The first ground on which modification is sought is that the statement from the petitioner's side that ten seats were vacant was not accurate. It has been stated by the respondents that certain students who had been admitted have left the course after joining on their own and one student's admission had been cancelled on the ground that it was improperly obtained. 3. It has been stated by the respondents that certain students who had been admitted have left the course after joining on their own and one student's admission had been cancelled on the ground that it was improperly obtained. 3. So far as this ground is concerned, it is not disputed by the respondents side that certain seats were vacant on the date when the order dated 20.11.2009 was passed and are still lying vacant and would remain vacant if the petitioner is not accommodated according to the said order dated 20.11.2009. Therefore, even if the alleged inaccuracy is there in the averment in the writ petition regarding ten seats remaining vacant, the inaccuracy is not regarding a material fact i.e. a fact which could materially affect the decision or the basis of the decision. Thus, the above ground is not sufficient for any modification in the interim order dated 20.11.2009. 4. The second ground urged from the respondents side is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 258 and Anr. decision in the same series titled Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 65 . These decisions as well as the guideline issued by the Medical Council of India with regard to the time schedule for admission to the technical course, is basically intended to bind the Authorities in-charge of the admissions, to strictly adhere to the time schedule for admission. Spirit of the decisions is that admissions should not keep taking place till the end of the academic session, so that a student may not be admitted merely for appearing at the examination without attending any part of the course. 5. While strictly speaking this adherence to time schedule for admission does not directly bind or tie down the High Court in granting interim or final relief to a student, but it appears to be appropriate for the High Court, to keep in mind the logic behind the decisions of the Supreme Court, while passing interim or final order with regard to mid-session admission. It would not be proper on part of the Court to direct admission of a student when, because of the time elapsed, the affect of such admission would be contrary to what the Supreme Court intended to prevent. 6. It would not be proper on part of the Court to direct admission of a student when, because of the time elapsed, the affect of such admission would be contrary to what the Supreme Court intended to prevent. 6. However, in the present matter it is not the case of the respondents that substantial part of the academic session had gone by when the interim order dated 20.11.2009 was passed by this Court. Therefore, on the above ground also no modification is called for in the interim order dated 20.11.2009. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that certain other students have also sought admission by making applications before the respondents. While respondents may be free to take their decisions in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the guideline of Medical Council of India, this Court at present is not concerned with that situation or issue. 8. As prayed, a complete counter affidavit may be filed within one month. A rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter. 9. List immediately thereafter.