Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 466 (JHR)

Quazia Sultana Rizvi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-28

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have secured above 40% marks in the competitive and qualifying examinations separately and were entitled to be considered for admission to the Medical Colleges, their admissions have been denied on the ground of intervening notification dated 21.9.2011 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondents. It has been stated that by the said notification, the earlier provisions of exchange of vacant seats among S.T/S.C/B.C/Gen. categories have been withdrawn. The said withdrawal has been made in the midst of the process of examination and on the basis of the said notification, the respondents have denied counselling of the petitioners for admission on the vacant seats. It has been submitted that 20 seats are still vacant and the petitioners should have been adjusted against the said seats, but the respondents have arbitrarily denied their counselling and admissions on an erroneous ground that the earlier provisions of exchange of seats have been withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the process of examination was initiated, in the midst of the process, there cannot be any change in the rules and requirements, much less, a provision, which is beneficial to the candidates, who appeared in the examination. Even the said notification has not been made effective with retrospective date and it can not be implemented from back date in the examination process, which had started much before coming into force of the said notification. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi supported the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that if there is any change in the policy decision, in the midst of the process of examination, the same cannot be made applicable to the examination, process of which had started prior to coming into force of the said notification. 4. Learned J.C to A.A.G appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that though the said notification has been issued by the State Government, its implementation has to be made according to its provisions by the concerned authorities. The State Government has no concern with the process of admission. 5. Mr. 4. Learned J.C to A.A.G appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that though the said notification has been issued by the State Government, its implementation has to be made according to its provisions by the concerned authorities. The State Government has no concern with the process of admission. 5. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, submitted that since the said notification has been issued by the State Government in the midst of the process of examination, the Board is duty bound to follow the provisions of the said notification. By the said notification, the earlier provisions made for exchange of seats among different categories, have been withdrawn with immediate effect and in view thereof, the admissions have not been made in accordance with the earlier provisions. It has been submitted that the Board has to act in accordance with the policy decision and the provisions of law. It has not done anything on its own. Since the said notification has been issued in the midst of the process, the admissions have been taken following the provisions of the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. An advertisement was published on 14.3.2011 for admission to the Graduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges of the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the process of examination was started. The petitioners appeared in the said examination on 18.5.2011. The petitioners obtained qualifying marks. They were in the hope of getting letters for counselling. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued notification dated 21.9.2011 recalling the earlier provisions of exchange of seats. It has been submitted that 20 seats of S.T Quota are still vacant in absence of any qualifying candidate of that category. Under the prevalent provisions, those seats were to be filled up from the candidates of other categories. The petitioners, who have secured 40% marks and were qualified for counselling, had reasonable expectation that they will be considered for admission against the said vacant seats, but they were not called for counselling on the ground that the provisions of exchange of the seats have been withdrawn by the State Government by the said intervening notification in the midst of the process. In my opinion, the petitioners' grievance is reasonable and genuine. In my opinion, the petitioners' grievance is reasonable and genuine. The petitioners had appeared in the said examination much prior to issuance of the said notification and they had reasonable expectation for consideration of their admissions on the vacant seats of other categories in view of the prevalent provisions of exchange of seats. Sudden withdrawal of the said provisions takes away that right of consideration of the petitioners in the midst of the process of the said examination by issuing the said notification, which is prejudicial to the petitioners. Moreover, the said notification, which has been issued in course of the process of the said examination, has not been made effective retrospectively and in that view also, the provisions of the said notification cannot be made applicable to the said examination which had commenced much before issuance of the said notification. It has been clearly mentioned in Clause 5 of the said notification that it will be effective with immediate effect i.e. from the date of notification. 7. In view of the above, I find no valid ground or justification for denying consideration of the petitioners' admissions under the then prevalent provisions of exchange of seats among different categories when, admittedly, 20 seats are still vacant in the category of the S.T in absence of any qualifying candidate of that category. 8. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. 9. Considering the above, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' claim in accordance with the provisions, which were applicable on the date of initiation of the process of the said examination. If the petitioners have qualified in the said examination and are entitled to be considered for their admissions on the vacant seats, the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board shall seek permission from the Medical Council of India, New Delhi to that regard. On receipt of any such request, the Medical Council of India, New Delhi shall consider the same in view of the facts that the petitioners are not at fault and that they have secured the qualifying marks, and shall issue appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt of such request of the Board.