Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 665 (GAU)

Nilanjana Sarma v. State of Assam

2013-09-10

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2013
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 is represented by advocates Mr. T.J. Mahanta and Mr. B. Chakraborty. Mr. B. Gogoi, the Standing Counsel, Health appears for the respondents 1, 2, 3 & 5. The matter pertains to admission into 1st year MBBS Course-2013 against the 2 seats reserved under the 'Freedom Fighters' Quota. As per the online process stipulated in the Educational Notice advertised on 3.4.2013 (Annexure-2) the petitioner applied and she specified that the application is made under the category GEN (FFM, FFE). Under Rule 4(e) of the Medical Colleges of Assam, Regional Dental College, Guwahati and Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (Regulation of Admission of Undergraduate Students) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Admission Rules") under which 2 seats are reserved for eligible kin of the State freedom fighters. The candidate appeared in the common entrance examination and her Roll No. 351554 was notified as the 3rd ranked candidate in the freedom fighters category on score of 162 marks and 649th rank. However the 1st ranked in this category with aggregate marks of 157 and 519th rank, Dip Saikia secured admission in merit category. Accordingly as the 3rd ranked candidate the petitioner expected admission into one of the 2 seats earmarked under freedom fighters quota. 2. But during counselling, the petitioner learnt that the respondent No. 4 Priyanka Goswami, whose Roll No. 352740 doesn't figure anywhere in the Counselling Notice of 25.6.2013 (Annexure-5) and who didn't apply in the freedom fighters category, was being considered to the 2nd quota seat. It may be mentioned that the entrance test result of respondent No. 4 was better than the petitioner as she secured the 510 rank with 168 marks. 3. In this year's admission process, the candidates who failed to specify their criterion in their online applications were permitted to cure this omission and accordingly the decision of the Selection Board whereby it was decided to consider the application of candidates who failed to mark their category in the application Form-A is being challenged since with correction of her categorization, the respondent No. 4 can claim one of the 2 seats in the freedom fighters category as is provided under Rule 4(e) of the Admission Rules. In the Entrance Examination, the respondent No. 4 with the aggregate marks of 168 was ranked at 510th position vis--vis the petitioner's 649th rank but since her categorization wasn't specified in her Form-A application, she was considered as a general category candidate. But when the last admission in this category ended with the 500th ranked candidate, in the notice dated 25.6.2013 (Annexure-5) whereby the candidates were invited for counselling, the roll number of the respondent No. 4 was not reflected even amongst the general category candidates. 4. After realising her mistake the respondent No. 4 applied for correction of her categorization on 5.7.2013 and thereafter she was short-listed as the 3rd candidate in the freedom fighters quota for the counselling scheduled on 14.7.2013. It may be mentioned herein that on 14.7.2013 during counselling, the respondent No. 4 Priyanka Goswami was reflected as withheld and on this basis, the petitioner's name was placed as the 1st waitlisted candidate in the freedom fighters category. 5. In her application made on 5.7.2013 to the Director of Medical Education, the respondent No. 4 admitted that although she is the maternal granddaughter of the freedom fighter Late Prabhat Chandra Sarma, due to inadvertence, she didn't mark her candidature in the freedom fighters category. Along with her rectification application, the applicant enclosed the certificate issued to her freedom fighter maternal grandfather Prabhat Chandra Sarma and prayed for time to furnish the link certificate subsequently. 6. The members of the Selection Board met on 8.7.2013 and in that meeting, the Committee considered judgment dated 21.6.2013 in the WP(C) 3398/2013 (Shreya Dey vs. The State of Assam) whereby this Court directed consideration of correction of applicant Shreya's categorization in the OBC category, as due to oversight, the candidate failed to project herself in the correct category. But while considering re-categorization of the applicant Shreya Dey as per the Court's verdict in the WP(C) 3398/2013, the Selection Board decided to accept similar applications of other candidates who failed to specify their category in the Form-A application. 7.1. Representing the petitioner, advocate Mr. S.S. Dey, submits that the respondent No. 4 in her online application applied under the general category and accordingly her candidate can't be considered in the freedom fighters category by allowing change of categorization midway through the admission process. 7.1. Representing the petitioner, advocate Mr. S.S. Dey, submits that the respondent No. 4 in her online application applied under the general category and accordingly her candidate can't be considered in the freedom fighters category by allowing change of categorization midway through the admission process. The Counsel submits that the judgment of this Court in the WP(C) 3398/2013 was not of universal application and accordingly the Selection Board could not have based their reconsideration decision for all the others on the Court's judgment dated 21.6.2013. 7.2. Referring to Rule 13(4) of the Admission Rules, the petitioner contends that the link certificate to the candidate as a kin of the freedom fighter is to be issued by the competent authority in the concerned district and since grandfather of respondent No. 4 Late Prabhat Chandra Sarma was a resident of Barpeta District, the Link Certificate to his daughter's daughter should have been issued by the authorized officer of Barpeta District and could not have been legitimately issued by the SDO(S), Guwahati. 7.3. The petitioner also contends that on the date of scheduled counselling i.e. 14.7.2013, the respondent No. 4 could not produce Certificate of Residency Annexure-III(C) and accordingly she couldn't legitimately be considered for admission. 8.1. However the respondent No. 4 projects that she applied for rectification of her categorization to the freedom fighters category through her written application dated 5.7.2013 and since rectification prayer was made well before the scheduled counselling on 14.7.2013, the authorities have rightly decided to accept her request for correction of categorization. 8.2 Projecting that the respondent No. 4 performed better than the petitioner in the entrance test, it is argued that once genuineness of her relationship with the freedom fighter is established, denial of admission will be unjust since the more meritorious applicant will be deprived. 8.3 On the Link Certificate issued by the SDO (S), Guwahati, it is argued that since the respondent No. 4 is a resident of Guwahati and her mother Smti. Mulima Sarma (Goswami) is the daughter of Late Prabhat Chandra Sarma-the freedom fighter, the Link Certificate was rightly issued by the competent officer of Guwahati. 9.1 The learned Standing Counsel Mr. 8.3 On the Link Certificate issued by the SDO (S), Guwahati, it is argued that since the respondent No. 4 is a resident of Guwahati and her mother Smti. Mulima Sarma (Goswami) is the daughter of Late Prabhat Chandra Sarma-the freedom fighter, the Link Certificate was rightly issued by the competent officer of Guwahati. 9.1 The learned Standing Counsel Mr. B. Gogoi in turn submits that for the first time in Assam the online application process was introduced this year and since many candidates were unfamiliar and made mistakes and had applied for re-consideration of their candidature, taking a cue from the Court's judgment in the WP(C) 3398/2013, a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Board on 8.7.2013 for accepting rectification applications from everyone who failed to specify their proper category in their online applications. The Counsel submits that the rectification application of the respondent No. 4 was received on 5.7.2013 by the Director, Medical Education well before the Selection Board met on 8.7.2013 and since counselling for admission in the freedom fighters category was scheduled only on 14.7.2013, the change of categorization subject to verification of the supporting testimonials was permitted for the respondent No. 4 and many others who similarly applied for rectification. 9.2. According to the admission authorities, the change of categorization was permitted only after genuineness of the supporting certificates were verified. Moreover although the Court did not specify its order to be of general application, when the board members met on 8.7.2013 a holistic view of the Court's order in the WP(C) 3398/2013 was taken and the selection board decided to allow rectification to all candidates who failed to categorize their online applications. 10. Although the petitioner argues that such rectification could not have been universally permitted what is relevant to consider is that none could secure change of categorization without establishing through supporting documents that change is warranted in their case. It must also be kept in mind that the Selection Board allowed rectification across the board to all applicants. What is of course significant is that this decision of the Selection Board will ensure that admission is granted only on merit as per the applicable categorization and none need to suffer for inadvertent mistake in failing to mention his/her categorization, in the online application. What is of course significant is that this decision of the Selection Board will ensure that admission is granted only on merit as per the applicable categorization and none need to suffer for inadvertent mistake in failing to mention his/her categorization, in the online application. Moreover the decision of 8.7.2013 was a transparent decision consciously applied for everyone who foiled mark their online applications and was not intended to show undue favour to any chosen candidate. 11. In so far as the Link Certificate of respondent No. 4, she had enclosed the freedom fighter certificate of her maternal grandfather and stated that she had applied for the link certificate and will furnish the same at the time of counselling. Since the respondent No. 4 is a resident of Guwahati and is unquestionably linked to the freedom fighter I am of the view that the competent authority to issue the link certificate to respondent No. 4 under Rule 13(4) of the Admission Rules is the authorized officer of Kamrup (M) District since for an applicant of Guwahati the Barpeta Officer mayn't have legitimately issued the link certificate. 12. That apart on the date of counselling (14.7.2013), the respondent No. 4 had furnished all supporting testimonials to establish that she is entitled to be considered in the freedom fighters category and on that basis, the admission authorities considered her candidature. But her admission was temporarily withheld only because, she didn't immediately furnish Certificate of Residency [Annexure-III(C)] which however was produced by her on 16.7.2013. The mode of application under Rule 7(2) requires a candidate to furnish the Form-B Certificate if called for and admittedly the respondent No. 4 had submitted the Form-A application in due time. Moreover being the granddaughter of Assam resident freedom fighter there mayn't be any doubt on her residency status. Therefore I am of the view that the Board could legitimately consider the candidature of the respondent No. 4 in the freedom fighters category. 13. As earlier recorded, the respondent No. 4 was ranked higher in the entrance test and was obviously the more meritorious candidate. Therefore I see nothing wrong in granting her admission in the freedom fighters category as rectification of her Form-A application was permitted as per the general decision of the Selection Board. 13. As earlier recorded, the respondent No. 4 was ranked higher in the entrance test and was obviously the more meritorious candidate. Therefore I see nothing wrong in granting her admission in the freedom fighters category as rectification of her Form-A application was permitted as per the general decision of the Selection Board. According to me the selection Board's decision will further the cause of justice since it was a conscious and transparent decision which enabled many applicants across the board to be considered for admission, in the applicable category. But for the rectificatory exercise the deserving applicant would have been deprived which will be unreasonable. The net result of the process is that the teething problems in a first ever online process were addressed and the corrective steps in the backdrop of the case is found to be justified. 14. In view of above, since a more meritorious candidate is being considered for admission in the freedom fighters quota and observing that genuineness of the categorization of the respondent No. 4 is not being questioned in the case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the admission process in the freedom fighters category. Consequently the case is dismissed. The interim order dated 18.7.2013 is accordingly vacated. The case is disposed of accordingly with the above order without any order on cost.