Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1081 (JHR)

Laxman Mahto v. Union of India

2020-11-12

RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant writ petition is by way of pro bono publico for issuance of the following directions: “(a) For direction to respondent nos.8 and 9 for, mandatory implementation/taking cognizance of confirmation page at the time of conducting the Counseling for admission in different courses. i.e. MBBS/BDS/BHMS etc. of medical colleges of Jharkhand State, from candidates who have qualified in NEET (UG) 2020, before publication of provisional/ final State-Merit List respectively on 10.11.2020 and 14.11.2020 as because in absence of non-implementation of confirmation page, the interest of students of Jharkhand has been suffered drastically, and this is also in contrast of domicile policy of the State of Jharkhand, as mentioned in para-2 of the Advertisement No.JCECEB/31/20-62, dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure-7 to this writ petition). (b) For adherence/compliance of admission procedure as enshrined in chapter 5.1 [Admission Procedure of Information Bulletin of NEET (UG) 2020]. (c) For uploading of result of NEET (UG) 2020, for Jharkhand’s candidates given by DGHS, Ministry of Health, Govt. of India in JCECEB website for complete transparency.” 3. The brief fact of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, reads hereunder as: Online applications were invited in pursuant to Advertisement No.JCECEB/31/20-62 dated 28.10.2020 for preparation of State Merit List on the basis of NEET (UG)-2020 Result. The said advertisement as contained in Condition no.-2, (vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition) dealing with the residential criteria, reads as hereunder: “The candidate must be a citizen of India and Local/Permanent resident of Jharkhand. The “Local Resident of Jharkhand” has been defined & identified in 7/Aa Niti (Sarvdaliaye Baithak) 27/2002 (Khand) Ka.3198/dated 18.04.2016 of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. The Notification copy is available under Downloads column on the Board’s website. A candidate will have to upload Local Resident Certificate in proper format, issued by competent authority [Circle Officer or Sub Divisional Officer-(Civil) or Dy. Commissioner of Jharkhand State]. The Residential Certificate issued by any other authority and in other than prescribed format will not be entertained and his/her claim will be rejected. A candidate will have to upload Local Resident Certificate in proper format, issued by competent authority [Circle Officer or Sub Divisional Officer-(Civil) or Dy. Commissioner of Jharkhand State]. The Residential Certificate issued by any other authority and in other than prescribed format will not be entertained and his/her claim will be rejected. The Local Resident certificate format is available under Act & Circulars column on Board’s website.” The concerned respondent has announced the result of NEET (UG) 2020 on 28.10.2020 which was delivered to the State representatives. The respondent no.2 has issued a notice on 30.10.2020, whereby and whereunder the schedule for conduction of UG Counseling 2020 of All India quota and State quota is enclosed. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the advertisement of the year 2020, as contained at Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the Condition No.2 stipulates that a candidate will have to upload Local Resident Certificate in proper format issued by competent authority [Circle Officer or Sub Divisional Officer-(Civil) or Dy. Commissioner of Jharkhand State]. The petitioner contends that in the advertisement of the year 2019, as contained at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, under the caption heading ‘Residential Criteria’ which reads as hereunder: “(a) Residential Criteria: The candidate must be a citizen of India and Local/Permanent resident of Jharkhand. The “Local Resident of Jharkhand” has been defined & identified in 7/Aa. Niti (Sarvdaliaye Baithak) 27/2002 (Khand) Ka.3198/, dated 18.04.2016 of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. The Notification copy is available under Downloads column on website. A candidate will have to submit Local Resident Certificate in proper format in ORIGNAL at the time of Counseling, issued by competent authority [Sub Divisional Officer-(Civil) or Dy. Commissioner of Jharkhand State] along with the confirmation page of the Application Form filled by the candidate during online submission of application form of NEET (UG)-2019. The Residential Certificate issued by any other authority will not be entertained and his/her claim will be rejected. The Local Resident certificate format is available under Act & Circulars column on website. The candidates have to submit the Rank Card as well as confirmation page regarding eligibility of State.” 4. Mr. The Residential Certificate issued by any other authority will not be entertained and his/her claim will be rejected. The Local Resident certificate format is available under Act & Circulars column on website. The candidates have to submit the Rank Card as well as confirmation page regarding eligibility of State.” 4. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner by making comparison between the advertisements of the year 2019 and 2020, has submitted that in the advertisement of the year 2019 residential certificate issued by the competent authority was to be submitted along with confirmation page of the application form filled by the candidate while such condition is not available in the advertisement of the year 2020. According to the petitioner, due to absence of such condition in the advertisement of the year 2020, there is every likelihood that the candidate having the domicile of the State of Jharkhand will not be considered, since the confirmation page contains the details of the caste, resident and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition about confirmation page of the application form has intentionally not been done to deprive the candidate of the State of Jharkhand from their chances to take admission in the local colleges. Further, issue has been raised that in three medical colleges of the State of Jharkhand i.e. Medini Rai Medical College & Hospital, Palamu, Sekh Bhikhari Medical College & Hospital, Hazaribag and Fulo Jhano Medical College & Hospital, Dumka, which are having 300 medical seats, but the issue of recognition of these medical colleges since is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, there is no question of admission in these colleges and thereby the candidature of 300 candidates has already been jeopardized. Therefore, the fact about the confirmation page since is not available in the advertisement of the year 2020, the same will accelerate the grievance of the candidates of the State of Jharkhand, who will be able to take admission even they are domicile of the State of Jharkhand. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand as also Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.9-Board have appeared and contested the case. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand as also Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.9-Board have appeared and contested the case. It has been submitted by them jointly that the public interest litigation is not maintainable as because the issue which has been agitated, is not affecting the public at large. Further, the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who happens to be a mechanic, has no concern with the study in the field of medical. They have further agitated that it would be evident from the pleadings made in the writ petition that only on apprehension the writ petition has been filed because as yet none of the candidates has come forward raising the aforesaid grievance about non-consideration of their caste certificate on the ground of domicile of the State of Jharkhand and even if the grievance is there, it is the candidate who has suffered, is to approach the Court of law by filing an adversary litigation and not by public interest litigation. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition, deem it fit and proper first to deal with the meaning of public interest litigation. Public interest litigation does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. The issue of public interest fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the definition of public interest has laid down at paragraph-14, which reads hereunder as: “14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. ….. …...” The public interest litigation which has been defined in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs-5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, has held as under: “5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, 4th Edn., “public interest” is defined thus: “Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 6. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., “public interest” is defined as follows: “Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” 7. In Janata Dal case this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331) “53. The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331) “53. The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p. 334) “62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) “98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109) “109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 , has been pleased to lay down the guidelines as under paragraph 181, extract of which reads hereunder as: “181. …… (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 7. This Court has proceeded to examine the factual aspects, in the backdrop of the ratio laid down in these cases referred hereinabove. We have found that the writ petitioner is a mechanic, who admittedly has no knowledge about the medical line. 7. This Court has proceeded to examine the factual aspects, in the backdrop of the ratio laid down in these cases referred hereinabove. We have found that the writ petitioner is a mechanic, who admittedly has no knowledge about the medical line. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (supra), in which one of the guideline is that the Court should verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL, therefore, we deemed it fit and proper to hear the writ petitioner in person and hence called upon the writ petitioner to appear in person through online. The petitioner has appeared and was queried about the medical line in the open Court proceeding through online. We have found from the answers given by the writ petitioner that he is having no idea about the medical studies rather he even has failed to answer about the meaning of confirmation page, which is the main issue raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and as such, we are prima facie satisfied that the writ petitioner is an imposter, has nothing to do with the issue raised in the writ petition. Further, the question of admission cannot be said to be a litigation in the nature of public interest as per the definition of the public interest litigation, as has been discussed in the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (supra). The issue agitated in this writ petition cannot be said to be a public interest litigation since the public interest litigation means a general interest and not for a particular section or extract of society. Herein, the relief has been sought for the candidates, who had appeared in the NEET Examination and as such, even if they will be admitted or they will not be admitted people at large is not going to suffer and as such, according to our considered view, the nature of issue agitated in this writ petition is not coming under the fold of public interest, since herein the sole grievance of the writ petitioner is about the consideration of candidature of one or other candidate who are domicile of the State of Jharkhand. 8. 8. We have come to a concrete conclusion that, if the issue of domicile will not be considered, which pertains to the individual grievance of a candidate, in that circumstances one can move before the Court of law for redressal of grievance. 9. In that view of the matter, according to our considered view, this writ petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation, therefore, the same is dismissed.