Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1737 (BOM)

Seema Sunil Khinvasara v. State of Maharashtra

2012-09-12

A.A.SAYED, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD

body2012
Judgment A.A. Sayed, J. 1. The Petitioner who is a doctor by profession and practices in a rural village has filed this Petition for and on behalf of her minor daughter Pranjal. The Petitioner has questioned the denial of admission by Respondent No.3 college to Pranjal in the First year MBBS course from the Maharashtra Rural quota. The Petition was amended after a Reply was filed by Respondent no.3 and the Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of clause 3.2.4 of the 2012 Prospectus of the college on the ground that it is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Directorate of Medical Education and Research. Respondent No. 3 is the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences situated at Sevagram in District Wardha (referred to as “Respondent No. 3 college”). Respondent No.4 is the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present Petition are that Pranjal had appeared in the Pre-Medical Entrance Test and had applied under Maharashtra Rural quota which is reserved for students from rural areas of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.3 college initially had an intake capacity of 65 seats which was increased to 100 seats out of which 6 seats were reserved under the Rural quota. Pranjal appeared for the Pre-Medical Entrance Test on 15.4.2012 conducted by Respondent no.3 college and was ranked 10th in the Merit List of the Rural quota. 4. Clause 3.2 of the Prospectus deals with the category of 'Rural' and sets out various other clauses which lay down the eligibility criteria under this category. In the present case, Pranjal was denied admission as according to the Respondent No.3 college she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down under clause 3.2.4 which reads as follows: “3.2.4: Candidate must have done Pre-High School (first to 8th standard) education for at least 4 continuous years in a school/Navodaya Vidyalaya located in the village of residence or in a adjacent village which shares the same post office (Annexure 6.) Candidate must have passed 10th std examination from a high school/Navodaya Vidyalaya situated in the village of residence or in a adjacent village which shares the same post office. (Annexure 7)...” 5. (Annexure 7)...” 5. According to the Petitioner, Pranjal fulfills the eligibility criteria under clause 3.2.4 and was therefore entitled to be considered under the Rural category as the residence and school of Pranjal share the same Post Office i.e. Manchar Post Office and also share the same Pincode i.e. 410503. 6. In the Reply filed by the Respondent No.3 college, it is pointed out that Pranjal does not fulfill the following conditions of eligibility under the Rural category: (i) of having completed at least four continuous years of her Pre-High school education (Standard I to Standard VIII ) from one school; and (ii) of such school being located in the village of residence or in an adjacent village which shares the same Post Office as the village of residence. It is stated in the Reply that Pranjal was ranked 10th in the Merit List for the category of Rural and was 6th in the Waiting List. Subsequently, on 16.7.2012 Pranjal was sent a communication informing her that she had been provisionally selected subject to verification of her original documents including eligibility certificates. It was later found that the Post Office of the village of New English School (where Pranjal studied from Standard VI to X) and that of the village of her residence was not the same and it is in these circumstances that her claim to admission was rejected. On 21.7.2012, they have already filled the 6 seats under Rural category. 7. In the Additional Affidavit in Reply filed by Respondent No.3 college it is stated that clause 3.2.4 is based on the principle of Local Area Schooling whereby students residing in a particular village are required to attend the school in the same village. This results in community involvement in the school and helps to raise the standard of education in the village. The requirement of the village of residence and the village of schooling having the same Post Office would ensure that the school is not too far away from the residence of the candidate, though it may be in an adjacent village. This prevents mischief of a family staying in a village and sending their ward to a nearby village or visa-versa to get such a benefit. It is urged that Clause 3.2.4 sets out a reasonable classification and is therefore constitutionally valid. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. This prevents mischief of a family staying in a village and sending their ward to a nearby village or visa-versa to get such a benefit. It is urged that Clause 3.2.4 sets out a reasonable classification and is therefore constitutionally valid. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The controversy in this petition revolves around clause 3.2.4 of the 2012 Prospectus of the Respondent No. 3 college, which is reproduced in para 4 hereinabove. 10. To fulfill the eligibility criteria under the clause 3.2.4 for admission to the MBBS course to Respondent No. 3 college under the Rural category, the following conditions need to be satisfied: (1) that the candidate should have passed Std. X examination from a High school situated in the village of residence or in an adjacent village which shares the same Post Office, and (2) that at least four continuous years of Pre-High school education (Std. I to VIII) of the candidate should have been done in a school located in the village of residence or in an adjacent village which shares the same Post Office. 11. In the present case, the village of residence of Pranjal is within the jurisdiction of Manchar Post Office. She has studied in Std. I to V in Shree Anantrao Kulkarni English Medium School situated in a village within the jurisdiction of Narayangaon Post Office. From Std. VI to X she has studied in New English School situated in a village within the jurisdiction of Landewadi Post Office. According to Petitioner however, Landewadi Post Office is a Branch Post Office under the account jurisdiction of Manchar Post Office. 12. On behalf of the Respondent No. 3 college it is contended that the Post Office of the village in which New English School is situate and the Post Office of the village of residence of Pranjal is not the same. The Petitioner has, however, produced on record a Certificate from the Asstt. Director Postal Services (Mails), Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai, the relevant portion whereof is extracted hereunder: “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN Department of Posts has set up Post offices in Urban and Rural Area. In rural areas, Sub Post Office which is a Departmental Post Office serves the Branch Post Office under its accounts jurisdiction which are mainly located in rural areas covering nearby gram Panchayat villages. In rural areas, Sub Post Office which is a Departmental Post Office serves the Branch Post Office under its accounts jurisdiction which are mainly located in rural areas covering nearby gram Panchayat villages. Branch Post Offices are completely manned by Extra Departmental Staff (Gramin Dak Sevak) who work for 3 to 4 hrs in a day who are governed by separate Conduct and Engagement Rules 2011. The Pincode of Delivery Sub Post Office is shared by all the branch post offices under account jurisdiction of respective Sub Post Offices. This is to certify that Landewadi village is a Branch Post Office under the account jurisdiction of Manchar Sub Post Office (which is Delivery Post Office) which shares the same Pincode of Manchar Sub Post Office i.e. 410 503.” 13. The aforesaid Certificate would show that Landewadi Post Office within whose jurisdiction village Landewadi is situated, is not a Departmental Post Office, but merely a Branch Post Office which falls within the account jurisdiction of Manchar Sub Post Office and shares the same Pincode i.e 410503. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the submission urged on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 college that the Post Office of residence of Pranjal and that of New English School where she studied from Std. VI to X (including the passing of Std. X examination from that School) is not the same. Thus, Pranjal would satisfy condition (1) mentioned in para 10 above. However, in addition to condition (1), she also needs to satisfy condition (2) mentioned in para 10 above, so as to lay a claim for admission under the Rural category. 14. It is not disputed before us that so far as Std. I to V is concerned, Pranjalhas studied in Shree Anantrao Kulkarni English Medium School which is situate in a village which falls within the jurisdiction of Narayangaon Post Office, whereas her village of residence falls within the jurisdiction of Manchar Post Office. Therefore, so far as Std. I to V is concerned, that has to be excluded from consideration to see whether or not Pranjal fulfills the criteria of “four continuous years” of Pre-High school education (i.e. Std. I to VIII) being completed in a school sharing the same Post Office as that of her residence. That leaves us with Std. VI to VIII of Pre-High School. Now, Std. I to VIII) being completed in a school sharing the same Post Office as that of her residence. That leaves us with Std. VI to VIII of Pre-High School. Now, Std. VI, VII and VIII would make only 3 continuous years of Pre-High school education within the jurisdiction of Manchar Post Office which is also the Post Office of the village of her residence. Pranjal therefore clearly does not fulfill condition (2) mentioned in para 10 above, which relates to at least four continuous years of Pre-High school education (i.e. Std.I to VIII) being completed in a school sharing the same Post Office as that of residence. (emphasis supplied) 15. In view of the above, we conclude that the student in this case does not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down under clause 3.2.4 of the 2012 Prospectus to claim admission to the MBBS course of Respondent No. 3 college under the Rural category. 16. It appears that the Petitioner more or less accepted the above position, inasmuch after the Reply was filed by Respondent No. 3 college, she has amended the Petition and sought to challenge the constitutional validity of clause 3.2.4 of the prospectus having realized the difficulty in seeking admission under the Rural category. 17. In so far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of clause 3.2.4 is concerned, on behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that there is no rationale in clause 3.2.4 to exclude Std. IX from consideration of “four continuous years” and therefore clause 3.2.4 is arbitrary. It is submitted that if Std. IX was taken into consideration in calculating “four continuous years”, Pranjal would have been eligible for admission under the Rural Category. 18. We may at this juncture refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of NachaneAshwini Shivram Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 Bombay 1. In that case the Court interalia considered the status of the Respondent No. 3 college and in para 110 of the judgment observed as follows: “ …. Petitioner, we find is a unique institution. Fifty percent of the admissions are granted to students from the State of Maharashtra, whereas fifty percent to students from outside Maharashtra. Admissions are granted purely on merit. The institute observes constitutional reservations for backward classes. Petitioner, we find is a unique institution. Fifty percent of the admissions are granted to students from the State of Maharashtra, whereas fifty percent to students from outside Maharashtra. Admissions are granted purely on merit. The institute observes constitutional reservations for backward classes. No capitation fees is charged and fees charged are not in excess of those charged by Government Colleges. The institute believes in the Gandhian School of thought and way of life. It ensures rural services on completion of the medical course. Petitioner, in the circumstances, can be said to be a class of its own. In the circumstances we hold that the admissions to the aforesaid institution cannot be put in the common pool. Petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to grant admissions. The admissions to the aforesaid institutions will, therefore, not be governed by the rules frames by the State Government and therefore, will not be liable to be controlled by the competent Authority constituted by the Government. It will be entitled to control admissions in morning dr.7593.12finaccordance with rules framed by it …” 19. The Full Bench of this Court thus took cognizance of the unique status of Respondent No.3 college and held that it would fall under a different class and further held that admissions to Respondent No. 3 college will not be governed by the Rules framed by the Government and the said Institute will be entitled to grant admissions on the basis of Rules framed by it. 20. Clause 3.2.4 is therefore required to be considered interalia on the touchstone of what has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Judgment. The requirement of the candidate, in his formative Pre-High school years (Std. I to VIII), to be in a rural school for four continuous years, is interalia to imbibe Gandhian values which the Respondent No. 3 college represents with emphasis on service in the rural areas. Std. I to VIII is Pre-High School, which as the term suggests, is something prior to High School and would form a separate category from High School. Std. X examination is not an in-house examination of School and is conducted by the State/Board and would fall in a different class. In our view, merely because Std. IX is not to be considered in reckoning in computing “four continuous years” would not make clause 3.2.4 irrational or unreasonable. Std. X examination is not an in-house examination of School and is conducted by the State/Board and would fall in a different class. In our view, merely because Std. IX is not to be considered in reckoning in computing “four continuous years” would not make clause 3.2.4 irrational or unreasonable. Even otherwise, that would be a matter of policy laid down by the Rules framed by Respondent No. 3 college which the Full Bench of this Court has recognized and we do not find anything manifestly unjust or arbitrary in clause 3.2.4. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the plea that the said clause is constitutionally invalid or that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 21. We note that since Pranjal did not meet the eligibility criteria, the candidate who was ranked next in the Merit List under Rural category namely Ms Rashmi Narendra Sakharwde was granted admission as far back as on 21st July, 2012 and she has not been arrayed as a party Respondent in the Petition. It is also noted that Ms Tina Dhanraj Manmode, who was ranked 2nd in the Waiting List in the Rural category was higher in rank than Pranjal who was ranked 6th in the Waiting List, was not granted admission on account of her failure to fulfill the eligibility criteria set out by clause 3.2.4 and even assuming clause 3.2.4. was to be held bad in law, Ms Tina will be required to be considered for admission prior to consideration of Ms Pranjal. We have however for the reasons noted earlier, already upheld the validity of Clause 3.2.4. 22. For the reasons indicated above, we are constrained to dismiss the Petition. It is accordingly ordered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order no costs.