Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 150 (HP)

Himanshi v. State of H. P.

2023-03-15

SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: “i. That petitioner be allowed to continue her classes at Dr. Radha Krishnanan Government Medical College Hamirpur and letter dated 24.12.2022 cancelling her admission (Annexure P8) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside. ii. In case if there are no seats available in college of respondent no. 4 then petitioner be allotted/granted a seat in other medical government college such as Dr. Yashwant Parmar Govt. Medical College Nahan Sirmour or Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College Kumarhatti, District Solan where seats are yet to be filled.” 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that petitioner appeared in NEET (UG) Exam 2022. She scored 473 marks, out of total 720 marks. Petitioner got herself registered online for UG-MBBS/BDS Course with respondent No. 2. Petitioner did not find place for admission in any of the Medical Colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh during first and second round of counselling. On 14.12.2022, respondent No. 2 published a list of candidates, who were allotted seats for MBBS/BDS Course in Mop up round. Name of petitioner found mention at serial No. 5 of the list published on 14.12.2022 and she was shown to have been provisionally allotted respondent No. 4-College. Petitioner got herself admitted in respondent No. 4-College on 17.12.2022 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 60,000/-. 4. Petitioner, prior to her admission in respondent No. 4-College, was undergoing BSC Nursing Course from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. Petitioner obtained No Objection Certificate from IGMC, Shimla and commenced her MBBS classes in respondent No. 4-College on 20.12.2022. She attended the classes till 23.12.2022 and on the next day i.e. 24.12.2022, petitioner was informed by respondent No. 4 that her admission stood cancelled vide letter of the same date Annexure P8. 5. Aggrieved against the cancellation of her admission in MBBS Course, vide Annexure P8, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition on the ground that the action of respondents in cancelling her admission in respondent No.4-College is illegal. The respondents have acted in malafide manner. Their impugned action is unreasonable and arbitrary. The respondents have cancelled the admission of petitioner without assigning any reasons. Petitioner had already left her BSC Nursing Course and hence, the respondents were estopped from cancelling her admission. 6. The respondents have acted in malafide manner. Their impugned action is unreasonable and arbitrary. The respondents have cancelled the admission of petitioner without assigning any reasons. Petitioner had already left her BSC Nursing Course and hence, the respondents were estopped from cancelling her admission. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 4 have filed their joint reply, whereas, respondents No. 2 and 3 have placed on record written instructions. Learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the matter be decided on the basis of written instructions, placed on record, on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 4 have submitted that the admission to the MBBS/BDS Courses is domain of respondent No. 2-University. Petitioner was admitted by respondent No. 4, when she was recommended for admission after Mop up round by respondent No. 2 and her admission was cancelled also on the asking of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the admission of petitioner in respondent No. 4-College was result of a technical flaw. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 4 has 15 seats for SC category students in MBBS Course. By admitting petitioner, the said quota had exceeded. The matter was immediately inquired and the technical flaw in admission process was noticed, which resulted in cancellation of the admission granted to the petitioner. 8. Respondents No. 2 and 3, by way of written instructions, have placed on record the factual position. It has been submitted that a student named Ms. Shivani had been admitted in respondent No.4-College in MBBS Course against SC category in the first round of counselling. She was placed at serial No. 421 with State merit No. 496. Similarly, another student named Ms. Kajal Kumari had serial No. 420 with State merit No. 494 had also been allotted respondent No. 4-College for MBBS Course in first round of counselling. 9. In the second round of counselling above named Ms. Kajal Kumari and Ms. Shivani had applied for up-gradation of Institutions and had given their respective preferences. Ms. Kajal Kumari did not get her preferred institution after second round of counselling and she was reverted to her original Institution i.e. respondent No. 4. Ms. Shivani, while submitting her preferences for up-gradation during second round of counselling, mentioned all the six Medical Colleges in the State including respondent No. 4. Since, Ms. Ms. Kajal Kumari did not get her preferred institution after second round of counselling and she was reverted to her original Institution i.e. respondent No. 4. Ms. Shivani, while submitting her preferences for up-gradation during second round of counselling, mentioned all the six Medical Colleges in the State including respondent No. 4. Since, Ms. Shivani had already been allotted respondent No.4-College after first round of counselling, she could not have opted for same College for upgradation. Though, Ms. Shivani was not allotted any preferred Institution after second round of counselling, she got her original seat in respondent No. 4-College by reversion. However, due to online counselling system, the seat which Ms. Shivani had provisionally left for the purposes of submission of preferred Institutions during second round of counselling, continued to be shown vacant on the online portal. As a result, the petitioner was offered admission in respondent No. 4-College against a seat, which otherwise was not vacant/available. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert or deny the factual position as rendered on behalf of the respondents. His only contention was that the petitioner was not at fault and hence, cannot be penalized. 11. Admittedly, respondent No. 4-College had 15 seats in MBBS Course for SC candidates. The said quota of 15 seats stood filled before commencement of Mop up round. A vacancy appeared for Mop up round only because Ms. Shivani had provisionally surrendered her seat in respondent No. 4-College for seeking option for a better Institution. She had wrongly opted for the same College i.e. respondent No. 4 while submitting her options for up-gradation. Ms. Shivani was not allotted any up-graded College but since the seat provisionally surrendered by her was being shown vacant, despite her reversion on the said seat, online system failed to detect the flaw. Consequently, petitioner was admitted in respondent No. 4-College against a seat, which factually was not available. 12. The number of seats for MBBS/BDS Courses in an Institution is fixed and cannot be increased at whims. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had applies to the appropriate authority for increase of seats in respondent No.4-College. That being so, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the reliefs, as claimed in the petition. We are satisfied that there is no malafide on part of respondents. Whatever happened, though unfortunate, was unintentional. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had applies to the appropriate authority for increase of seats in respondent No.4-College. That being so, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the reliefs, as claimed in the petition. We are satisfied that there is no malafide on part of respondents. Whatever happened, though unfortunate, was unintentional. It is also not the case that a less meritorious student has been admitted in preference to the petitioner. Ms. Shivani had higher marks than petitioner. 13. During the course of hearing, we have been informed that petitioner is continuing her BSC Nursing Course in IGMC, Shimla. 14. Keeping in view above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.