Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 757 (GUJ)

Rishabh Rajeshkumar Bansal v. State of Gujarat

2018-06-18

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2018
JUDGMENT : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. The original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.372 of 2018 is appellant in this appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. In the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the appellant herein – original petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by 2nd respondent cancelling caste certificate and conseqent order cancelling admission of the appellant in MBBS Course. 3. Necessary facts in brief for disposal of this appeal are as under : 3.1. The appellant herein after completing 12th Standard Examination with Science Stream had applied for admission in MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18. The appellant had obtained caste certificate from the Competent Authority and categorically mentioned category as SEBC. In support of his claim, he relied on certificate issued by the Competent Authority. Based on the information furnished by the appellant, Admission Committee has considered admission of the appellant and has allotted First Year MBBS seat to the appellant at Government Medical College, Vadodara, in the category of SEBC quota. It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the admission granted to the appellant, he joined the course and appeared in internal examination. After three months of study, the Competent Authority issued notice to the appellant calling for explanation with regard to his caste certificate, on which basis, he has claimed SEBC category. It is the case of the appellant that appellant’s father originally belonged to State of Bihar, but the appellant has studied and brought up in the State of Gujarat. After conducing inquiry, the Competent Authority has cancelled caste certificate. When the caste certificate is cancelled, based on the same, consequent order is passed cancelling the admission. 4. For the purpose of examining the claim of the appellant in this appeal, it is not necessary for us to delve in deep, on the issue of caste certificate claimed by the appellant. When the caste certificate is cancelled, based on the same, consequent order is passed cancelling the admission. 4. For the purpose of examining the claim of the appellant in this appeal, it is not necessary for us to delve in deep, on the issue of caste certificate claimed by the appellant. Even according to the case of appellant, the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that before examining the case, no inquiry was conduced by the Competent Authority, has allowed the petition by setting aside the order of the Competent Authority and further order canceling admission, with a direction to the Competent Authority to conduct inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate order, without being influenced by the earlier order and decide the same. 5. Consequent to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the Competent Authority has further examined the matter and passed order confirming that the appellant did not belong to caste claimed by him. The appellant challenged the said order by preferring the petition subsequently being Special Civil Application No.4469 of 2018, but same was withdrawn by seeking permission to prefer appeal against the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.372 of 2018. 6. In this appeal, it is the grievance that though the appellant has prayed for grant of relief to accommodate him in General Category, said relief is not considered by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that even the appellant is entitled for admission in general category, as such, if his case is not considered for grant of admission by shifting the category from SEBC to general/open category, the appellant will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 7. We have heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already cleared internal examination of First Year MBBS, and order of cancellation is made thereafter, as such, the learned Single Judge has committed error by not considering the alternative relief sought by the appellant to accommodate he appellant in the General Category. 8. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already cleared internal examination of First Year MBBS, and order of cancellation is made thereafter, as such, the learned Single Judge has committed error by not considering the alternative relief sought by the appellant to accommodate he appellant in the General Category. It is submitted that though admission is cancelled by order dated 16.11.2017, and thereafter, the appellant has not attended the course, but, learned Counsel has relied on the Notification dated 04.03.2017 issued by the Medical Council of India. Reference is made to substituted paragraph No.7(7) of the said Notification. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that having claimed SEBC status by furnishing information based on the caste certificate, and when caste certificate is cancelled, the appellant is seeking alternative relief at this belated stage. It is submitted that as per Rule 5(9) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules, 2017’ for short), if a certificate submitted by the candidate is found to be false, the admission of such candidate, if already granted, is to be cancelled. It is submitted that the appellant was admitted on SEBC seat on the basis of his caste certificate and therefore, by applying aforesaid Rule, admission is rightly cancelled. It is submitted that when consequent to directions issued by the learned Single Judge, further inquiry is conducted and confirmed that the appellant did not belong to caste claimed by him and when the order has become final, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandhigarh Administration and Anr. v/s. Jasmine Kaur and Ors. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521 . 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader, we have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and other material placed on record. In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellant by claiming that he belonged to ‘Hindu Baniya’ community, has obtained caste certificate and in the information furnished to the Admission Committee, he has also specifically stated that he belonged to SEBC category. In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellant by claiming that he belonged to ‘Hindu Baniya’ community, has obtained caste certificate and in the information furnished to the Admission Committee, he has also specifically stated that he belonged to SEBC category. Admission is granted to the appellant in SEBC category which itself is based on caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority. Subsequently, when the caste certificate is cancelled, Admission Committee by applying Rule 5(9) of the Rules, 2017 has cancelled admission of the appellant. So far as caste claim is concerned, the Competent Authority has conducted further inquiry consequent to directions issued by the learned Single Judge and passed further order which is challenged by the appellant in Special Civil Application No.4469 of 2018. When the order is passed by recording a finding that the appellant did not belong to category of ‘Hindu Baniya’ as claimed by him, he has questioned said order by filing subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No.4469 of 2018. However, said petition was withdrawn and in view of the same, order determining caste certificate has become final. 11. In this appeal, it is the case of the appellant that though he is entitled for grant of alternative prayer sought in the petition i.e. admission to be converted to general category and to continue the course, the learned Single has not considered such relief sought for. The claim of the appellant cannot be considered for the aforesaid relief in this appeal for more than one reason. Admission of the appellant is cancelled as early on 16.11.2017 and there is no interim relief. As such, the appellant has not continued the course for last about seven months along with the candidates who were granted admission in the batch of First Year MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18. In any event, having regard to available seats in medical colleges, admission is granted in various categories. It is evident from the reply affidavit filed in the petition that there are no vacancies in General/Open Category and all seats are filled. Without approval to increase intake capacity of one seat from the Medical Council of India, no directions can be granted for converting the seat from SEBC category to General Category. It is evident from the reply affidavit filed in the petition that there are no vacancies in General/Open Category and all seats are filled. Without approval to increase intake capacity of one seat from the Medical Council of India, no directions can be granted for converting the seat from SEBC category to General Category. Further more, if all seats are filled up in the general/open category in the First Year MBBS Course, relief claimed by the appellant for converting the seat cannot be considered. Medical Council of India is not made party respondent in this appeal. 12. It is true that pursuant to allocation of seats in the First Year MBBS Course, the appellant is admitted to 4th respondent College and appeared for internal examination and three months after the course, when it has come to light that the caste certificate issued to the appellant is cancelled, further order is passed canceling admission in the MBBS Course. Notification dated 04.03.2017 issued by the Medical Council of India reads as under : “7(7)The supplementary examination for 1st Professional MBBS Examination may be conducted within 6 months so that the students who pass can join the main batch and failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year provided that the students who pass the supplementary examination shall be allowed to appear in the second professional MBBS examination only after he/she completes the full course of study of three semesters (i.e. 18 months) for the second professional MBBS examination irrespective of the examination of the main batch.” 13. We fail to understand how such paragraph in the Notification would help the appellant. Said paragraph will apply to the candidates who have completed the Course of First Year MBBS and failed, but, not to the appellant whose admission is cancelled after three months of grant of admission. We are of the view that the notification relied by the learned Counsel for the appellant would not render any help to suppor this case. On the other hand, in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. (supra), relied on by learned Assistant Government Pleader, when direction was issued for admission to MBBS NRI quota for the subsequent year 2014-2015, such direction is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. (supra), relied on by learned Assistant Government Pleader, when direction was issued for admission to MBBS NRI quota for the subsequent year 2014-2015, such direction is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having regard to the fact that we are at the fag end of the academic year 2017-18, the appellant is not entitled for any direction as prayed for. In view the fixed intake capacity of seats in the medical course, no direction can be issued for grant of admission, for the subsequent academic year 2018-19 also. To the limited extent, judgment in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. (supra), relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the case of the respondents. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case is made for grant of reliefs as prayed for by the appellant. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merits and requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.