Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 491 (UTT)

Mrityuanjay Gupta v. Union Of India

2020-11-24

MANOJ K TIWARI

body2020
JUDGMENT Manoj K. Tiwari, J. - By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 to declare the petitioner eligible for departmental assessment/personal interaction in the entrance examination of 2020 pertains to MBA (HCA) & MHA dual course. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 to provide admission to the petitioner in the MBA (HCA) & MHA dual course for the present session. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 to provide provisional admission to the petitioner in the MBA (HCA) & MHA dual course for the present session." 2. Petitioner possesses M.B.B.S. Degree from a recognised Medical College and he has been registered with U.P. Medical Council. 3. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh (respondent no. 3) invited application for admission to M.B.A. (H.C.A.) & M.H.A. Dual Course and there were a total of fifteen seats available in the said course, out of which, four were sponsored, namely, two were sponsored for foreign nationals and two were available for in-service candidates. The procedure for selection for the eleven open seats has been mentioned in clause no. 3.2 of the Prospectus, which is extracted below:- "3.2. Procedure for Selection: It will be twostep process- (a) Students matching eligibility criteria can apply for MBA (HCA) & MHA Dual Degree Course. (b) All applicants will have to appear for Entrance Examination to be conducted by AIIMS, Rishikesh. Students qualifying Entrance Examination within minimum 50 percentile marks will be eligible for Departmental assessment/personal interaction. (c) Departmental assessment/personal interaction will be conducted by Selection Board detailed by AIIMS, Rishikesh. (d) Final result will be declared based on total marks obtained in Entrance Examination and Departmental assessment/personal interaction." 4. According to the case set up by the petitioner, there were only two candidates, who appeared in the entrance examination in the aforesaid course, therefore, he was confident that he will be called for Departmental Assessment/personal interaction. 5. (d) Final result will be declared based on total marks obtained in Entrance Examination and Departmental assessment/personal interaction." 4. According to the case set up by the petitioner, there were only two candidates, who appeared in the entrance examination in the aforesaid course, therefore, he was confident that he will be called for Departmental Assessment/personal interaction. 5. It was further contended by the petitioner that as per the Prospectus, admission has to be given based on percentile and since there were only two candidates who appeared in the entrance examination and the minimum qualifying marks prescribed, was 50 percentile, therefore, the act of not calling the petitioner for Departmental Assessment/ personal interaction is unjust and illegal. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Registrar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that only four candidates appeared in the entrance examination for admission to the aforesaid course; since the number of candidates appearing in entrance examination was very less, therefore, the method of percentile scoring was not adopted, as it would have been un-pragmatic and irrational to apply the said method in respect of only four candidates; petitioner stood fourth amongst the four candidates, who appeared in the entrance examination and he secured only 23 marks, out of 90 i.e. 25.5%, which is much below the qualifying marks for unreserved category. In para no. 7 of the counter affidavit, it is further stated that if result is declared in percentile terms, then also petitioner does not attain the qualifying marks, inasmuch as, due to his fourth rank amongst four candidates, his percentile score would come to only 25 by applying the formula provided by AIIMS Delhi, in its Prospectus for July, 2020. 7. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4. In para no. 3 of the said affidavit, an illustration has been given to justify their decision not to adopt the method of percentile scoring. In the illustration, it is stated that in a selection in which there are only two candidates, if first candidate scores 50 out of 100 marks; but, the second candidate scores zero out of 100 marks, he will still get 50 percentile based on rank because he will be at the second rank. 8. Mr. In the illustration, it is stated that in a selection in which there are only two candidates, if first candidate scores 50 out of 100 marks; but, the second candidate scores zero out of 100 marks, he will still get 50 percentile based on rank because he will be at the second rank. 8. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, has disclosed information regarding the four candidates, who participated in the entrance examination, along with their score of marks in percentage terms. The names of such candidates are as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Candidates Marks in Percentage 1. Levin Rao Dassari 46.67 2. Anju Jangra 44.44 3. Sweety Pal 41.11 4. Mrityuanjay Gupta (petitioner) 25.56 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that according to the Prospectus, selection for admission was to be made after determining the score of marks in percentile terms therefore, the respondents could not have changed the selection criteria to percentage terms. Although, respondent nos. 3 & 4 have sought to justify adoption of criteria of percentage terms by giving an illustration in para no. 3 of the short counter affidavit, however, in the absence of any enabling provision in the Prospectus, the respondents were not justified in altering the criteria of selection after commencement of selection process. However, the fact remains that even if the score of marks of all the candidates is calculated in percentile terms, then also petitioner's score does not come anywhere near 50 percentile, which is essential as per the Prospectus. 10. The writ petition was filed on the premise that there are only two candidates in the selection, however, through the counter affidavit, it has been revealed that this premise on which writ petition was based, is incorrect and there were four candidates, who participated in the selection process. 11. Since the petitioner's score of marks was the lowest amongst the four candidates, therefore, he does not qualify, as per the selection criteria prescribed in the Prospectus. 12. In such view of the matter, the reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there were as many as eleven seats, which were to be filled through open selection and only one candidate has been selected so far. 12. In such view of the matter, the reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there were as many as eleven seats, which were to be filled through open selection and only one candidate has been selected so far. If that is so, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Competent Authority by making a representation, which shall be considered in accordance with law within four weeks. 14. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.