Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 27 (ORI)

Parbati Kumari Swain v. Amita Das

2012-01-16

ARUNA SURESH, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2012
JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH, J. (oral) - Impugned in this writ appeal is the judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) NO.23089 of 2011. 2. Appellant was appointed as a Staff Nurse in MKCG Medical College and Hospital on 10.10.1995. While working as such, she was absorbed in the District cadre of Nayagarh District and was brought on deputation to serve as a Staff Nurse under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in the year 2002. While in service, she completed the course of Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing from the college of Nursing, Berhampur during the academic session 2005-07. In pursuance of an advertisement published in the year 2011-12, she filed an application for selection and admission to pursue her M. Sc. Nursing (self financing) course at the College of Nursing, Berhampur. As she had fulfilled the requisite eligibility, her name appeared at SI. No.8 of the select list dated 17.8.2011 prepared by the Selection Committee, whereas the name of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) found place at SI. No.1.5. On 22.8.2011 she went for counselling, selection and admission in accordance with the order dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure2). However, on the date of counselling she failed to produce her mark-sheet of the High School Certificate Examination and Career Chance Certificate from the concerned High School, though she had annexed copies of the same with the application. The Selection Committee gave her chance to produce the mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Career Chance Certificate from the concerned High School by 29.8.2011 in its meeting held on 22.8.2011. However, in the select list dated 22.8.2011 the name of the appellant did not find place. Subsequently, she produced the aforesaid original certificate at a later date and was selected and admitted to the said M. Sc. (Nursing) course. Challenging her selection and admission, respondent No.1 filed W.P. (C) No.23089 of 2011. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.11.2011 and the selection of appellant for admission into M. Sc. (Nursing) course (self financing) in the College of Nursing, Berhampur was quashed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to admit respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) in the said course subject to payment of requisite fees and fulfilment of other procedural formalities. Aggrieved, appellant has filed this writ appeal. 3. Mr. (Nursing) course (self financing) in the College of Nursing, Berhampur was quashed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to admit respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) in the said course subject to payment of requisite fees and fulfilment of other procedural formalities. Aggrieved, appellant has filed this writ appeal. 3. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant had already submitted copies of the documents as required under the prospectus along with her application and the selection committee having treated those documents as sufficient, finally selected and admitted the appellant into the course and therefore, demand for some additional documents on the date of counselling was not justified and the exclusion of appellant's name from the list of selected candidates for want of such additional documents was unwarranted, but the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the unjustified action on the part of the Selection Committee. He has further submitted that appellant having submitted the requisite documents within the time granted to her by the Selection Committee, was rightly selected and admitted to the M. Sc. (Nursing) course by the Selection Committee and the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the admission of the appellant on technical grounds of not submitting the original documents at the time of counselling as per clause 15, sub-clause (II) of the prospectus. It is further argued that at the time appellant had passed the Matriculation Examination, the mark-sheet was being issued by the concerned authorities of the School and not by the Board of Secondary Education and therefore, the appellant was not bound to produce the original H.S.C. marks-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which fact was over-looked by the selection committee as well as by the learned Single Judge. It is alleged that learned Single Judge should have considered that the appellant having been duly selected, was admitted into the course after paying the requisite admission fee and is pursuing the course of M. Sc. (Nursing) for last about six months. 4. With reference to the legal contentions submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, we have carefully examined as to whether the impugned order suffers from erroneous findings or error in law. The aforesaid point requires to be answered against the appellant for the following reasons. 5. (Nursing) for last about six months. 4. With reference to the legal contentions submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, we have carefully examined as to whether the impugned order suffers from erroneous findings or error in law. The aforesaid point requires to be answered against the appellant for the following reasons. 5. The attested true copies of the documents as detailed in clause XV sub-clause (II) of the prospectus were required to be attached with the application form and the original of the same were required to be produced on the date of counselling for admission. These documents include H.S.C. or equivalent examination pass certificate and all mark lists and +2/Intermediate examination pass certificate and all mark-lists. It was made clear in the prospectus that at no circumstance, the document would be accepted separately or after receipt of the application form and a candidate, who failed to produce any document in original on the date of counselling, would not be considered for selection. The appellant has admitted that on the date of counselling, she had not produced the original mark-sheet of H.S.C. Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and also the Career Chance Certificate from the concerned High School. However, she was given time by the Selection Committee to produce these two original documents by 29.8.2011. On production of these documents, she was given admission in M. Sc. (Nursing) course. 6. As per Clause XV, sub-cause (II) of the prospectus, the candidature of the appellant should not have been considered for selection on the date of counselling or thereafter for want of mark-sheet of the High School Certificate Examination and Career Chance Certificate from the concerned High School: While granting her time to produce the aforesaid documents on a later date, the Selection Committee by passed the mandatory clause contained in the prospectus to produce the original documents on the date of scrutiny, which it had no authority to do. Therefore, extension of time granted to the appellant for production of the aforesaid two documents was in violation of the Rules and directives contained in the prospectus. The appellant having failed to produce the original documents on the date of counselling could not have been selected for the said course in violation of the conditions stipulated in the prospectus. Therefore, extension of time granted to the appellant for production of the aforesaid two documents was in violation of the Rules and directives contained in the prospectus. The appellant having failed to produce the original documents on the date of counselling could not have been selected for the said course in violation of the conditions stipulated in the prospectus. Therefore, the learned Single Judge considering the violation of the conditions stipulated in the prospectus rightly quashed the selection and admission of the appellant in M. Sc. (Nursing) course (self financing) in the College of Nursing, Berhampur and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to admit respondent No.1 to the said course subject to complying the procedural formalities and depositing requisite fees. 7. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the appellant had joined M. Sc. (Nursing) course after having been relieved from her service as a Staff Nurse and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to explore the possibility of increasing one seat in the said course so as to accommodate the appellant provided there was no other legal impediment. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as it is neither vitiated on account of erroneous findings nor record of law. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. I agree. Appeal dismissed.