Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 442 (UTT)

Miss Sonam v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-08-02

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this petition is made to a communication made by the respondent no.2, Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University (“the University”), by which, the petitioner has been conveyed, “….her final year result is halt for the moment and the previous result will be considered invalid as per University standards. Till further notice, the student Sonam should be told to stop from starting any internship.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It may be noted that the instant petition has been admitted on 23.06.2023. On that date, the Court, as an interim measure, directed the University to issue necessary directions within seven working days from then to permit the petitioner to undergo internship subject to the condition that the internship shall remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The Court had directed the parties to exchange pleadings. This Court on 23.06.2023 also observed that, “neither the respondents nor the petitioner could be entitled to any adjournment or extension of time for filing of pleadings, because these are the matters, which need to be decided promptly in a time bound manner.” 4. The respondent nos.3 and 4 were issued notices. Registry has reported that “item dispatched”. Service is sufficient upon the respondent nos.3 and 4, but they did not appear. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that the respondent no.2 may be permitted to file a detailed counter affidavit. 6. The Court had already made it clear on 23.06.2023 that no extension would be entertained. The Court does not see any such reason, which may relax those stipulations as of now. There is no reason to extend the time to file counter affidavit. Therefore, the Court is reluctant to decline the request made on behalf of the respondent no.2 to give further time to file counter affidavit. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts need to be recapitulated. According to the petitioner, one Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary had taken admission in BAMS course for 2017 Batch in the respondent no.3, Motherhood Ayurvedic College Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the college”). But, on 15.05.2018, he informed the college that since he has been admitted in MBBS course, he wants to withdraw his admission, and requested to cancel his registration. The request was accepted and the registration was cancelled. 8. But, on 15.05.2018, he informed the college that since he has been admitted in MBBS course, he wants to withdraw his admission, and requested to cancel his registration. The request was accepted and the registration was cancelled. 8. The petitioner submitted her application form for admission in the college. On 21.06.2018, the college informed the petitioner that she has been admitted for BAMS course. When the petitioner cleared her first year examination, against her name, the Roll number of Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary was wrongly mentioned. The petitioner made a representation to the University and it was rectified. After completion of four years course, the petitioner was declared successful. She finally cleared the BAMS course in the year 2020. The Indian Medical Central Council granted “No Objection Certificate” for her internship. 9. The Uttarakhand Medical Council also entered the name of the petitioner in the Doctors’ Register for internship. But, the respondent no.2, the University by the impugned communication directed the petitioner not to pursue her internship, which is impugned herein. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had applied for admission in the college; she was duly admitted; she did not conceal anything; her result was declared; in the first year result, against her roll number the name of Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary was reflected, therefore, she made a representation and accordingly the University had rectified the mistake. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thereafter, in every year of the BAMS course the petitioner’s name reflected correctly in her result. She completed the course in the year 2020. She was given “No Objection Certificate” by the competent authority, but suddenly, by the impugned communication the respondent no.2 has directed her not to pursue for internship, which is not as per law. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, the University would submit that the petitioner was wrongly given admission against the roll number of one Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary, who was duly admitted in the BAMS course. The petitioner has herself made a request for correcting her name in the first year result. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the University would submit that the authority of the college has committed a mistake in not properly verifying and following the procedure for admission of the petitioner in BAMS course. 14. The petitioner has herself made a request for correcting her name in the first year result. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the University would submit that the authority of the college has committed a mistake in not properly verifying and following the procedure for admission of the petitioner in BAMS course. 14. It is not the case of the respondent no.2, the University also that the petitioner had concealed anything or committed any fraud or misrepresented or gave any false information at the time of her admission. The petitioner has already completed BAMS course. She was duly admitted. Her results were declared by the respondent no.2, the University. As stated, she cannot be blamed for her admission. If there were any error to be detected by the authority, perhaps the lapse may be attributed to such authority, but because of the act, five youthful years of the petitioner may not be allowed to be spoiled. In one of such situations, in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University, 1986 Supp. SCC 740, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this Judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission.” 15. It is not the case that the college was not competent to admit the petitioner as a BAMS student. The only point that has been raised by the respondent no.2, the University is that she was given admission against the enrollment of Shri Shiv Om Chaudhary, who had cancelled his registration. But, as stated, the petitioner revealed everything, made a representation; she was admitted, she cleared her examinations, she was granted marksheet; she was declared successful after completion of the course. Therefore, at this stage, it would be most unjust to the petitioner, if she is restrained to proceed further in the direction. She cannot be stopped from pursuing internship. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Therefore, at this stage, it would be most unjust to the petitioner, if she is restrained to proceed further in the direction. She cannot be stopped from pursuing internship. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 16. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication made by the respondent no.2, the Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University is hereby quashed.