Allowed

Dhaval U. Dinani v. Directorate of Technical Education and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2010WP/8109/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition seeking admission to a B.Pharm course at a specific institute. It held that since the cut-off date for medical admissions was later, the respondents were required to extend the pharmacy admission deadline to accommodate students transferring from other colleges, thereby admitting the petitioner based on merit.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to admit the petitioner to the first year B.Pharm course at Respondent No.3 immediately upon fee payment.

Dhaval U. Dinani Vs Directorate of Technical… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

wp-8109-10

SRK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8109 OF 2010

¶5

Dhaval U. Dinani ... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Technical Education and others. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni i/by Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &

¶8

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. Friday, October 15, 2010

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶11

Mr. N.P. Deshpande, learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for respondent Nos.3 and 4, inspite of service of notice twice on 11 October 2010 and 13 October 2010.

¶12

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is presently prosecuting the studies in first year B.Pharm course at respondent No.4 Institution has prayed for direction to the respondents to extend the cut off date for admission to respondent No.3 institution and has also prayed for direction to respondent No.3 institution to admit the petitioner to a vacant seat in 1st year Bachelor of Pharmacy course for the academic year 2010-2011.

¶13

The facts leading to filing of this petition broadly stated are as under:

wp-8109-10

SRK

The petitioner passed his HSC examination and at the CET conducted by the State Government, the petitioner secured 152 marks and got merit rank No.142. The petitioner applied for admission to pharmacy course in State of Maharashtra and gave first option for respondent No.3 institution i.e. Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not apply for admission to any medical/dental course or engineering course, as the petitioner always wanted to prosecute studies in pharmacy and that too in respondent No.3 Institute, if possible. According to the petitioner, as per the survey conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, respondent No.3 Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai has been considered to be the best technical institution in the field in the country, so also the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) of the AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) has given 'A' Grade to respondent No.3 institution. Even, the National Project Implementation Unit (A Government of India Unit for World Bank Assisted Project for Technical Education) commissioned a study covering assessment of 127 institutions in 13 States across India and rated respondent No.3 college as number one Institute.

¶18

The petitioner challenges the arbitrary policy of respondent No. 3 institution in not filling in the seats in the 1st year B. Pharm course which have remained vacant, and which vacancies arose upon five students admitted to respondent No.3 college securing admission to medical/dental colleges in the State between 18 and 30 September 2010. The petitioner submitted representation dated 27 September 2010 to extend the last date for granting admissions to 1st year Pharmacy course in respondent No.3 Institute, but to no avail.

wp-8109-10

SRK

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 30 September 2010 is the cut off date for securing admission to medical/dental courses as prescribed by Medical Council of India and since a number of meritorious students prefer to join medical/dental courses, respondents could not have fixed the cut off date of 18 September 2010 for admission to the 1st year B. Pharm course in respondent No.3 college. The learned counsel further points out that there are 30 seats in 1st year B. Pharm course in respondent No.3 college, out of which 15 seats are reserved for backward classes and 5 seats are reserved for girls, leaving only 10 seats for open merit candidates. The learned counsel points out that out of the 10 open merit seats which were all filled in before 18 September 2010, 5 fell vacant on account of 5 open merit candidates getting admission to medical/dental colleges between 18 and 30 September 2010. Even then, in spite of the petitioner's representation dated 27 September 2010 requesting respondent No.3 institution to extend the cut off date, respondent No.3 did not accept the above reasonable request.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the last open merit candidate to be admitted to the 1st year B.Pharm course in respondent No.3 college is Parab Nikita Vilas at serial No.39 of the eligible candidates for admission to B. Pharm course and the petitioner is at serial No.40 of the said list. The said candidate Parab Nikita Vilas obtained 153 marks in State CET whereas petitioner has obtained 152 marks in the State CET.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that unlike the Medical Council of India, Pharmacy Council has not fixed any

wp-8109-10

SRK

cut off date much less 18 September 2010. It is also submitted that unlike many other students joining in Engineering of Pharmacy course and subsequently seeking admission to the medical course, the petitioner had always given his first option for pharmacy course and in the admission form also, he had indicated his first option for 1st year B. Pharm course in respondent No.3 Institution without giving any choice for any medical/dental or engineering course. It is only because the petitioner could not get admission in respondent No.3 college initially, the petitioner had to accept admission to the 1st year B.Pharm course in respondent No.4 college. The learned counsel for the petitioner states under instructions of the petitioner present in the Court that the petitioner is also ready to pay the fees for the course to respondent No.4 college.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that since 18 September 2010 was the cut off date and the vacancies in question arose after 18 September 2010, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. The learned AGP further submits that the academic session started from 18 August 2010 and the syllabus to the tune of 40% is completed. Respondent No.3 follows continuous assessment process and class test for all the subjects of the semester examination is scheduled from 19 October 2010. The learned counsel also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others, (2002)7 SCC 258 and particularly paragraphs 18,20 and 23 of the said decision.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that in Madhu Singh's case, the students who had initially secured admission to

wp-8109-10

SRK

dental course had subsequently sought admission to medical course and that too, the High Court gave direction in December, 1998 after the admissions had closed in January 1998 for the academic year 1997-1998. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has already been prosecuting studies in 1st year B. Pharm course in respondent No.4 pharmacy college and seeks admission to 1st year B. Pharm course in respondent No.3 college because it is the best institution in the country and that the petitioner was next in queue for admission to the pharmacy course in respondent No.3 college. It is submitted that the petitioner is not seeking to move over from course to another.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. It is true that this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the decision of the academic institutions and that too in the matter of fixing the cut off date. However, unfortunately, the Director of Technical Education fixed the cut off date OF 18 September 2010, even though the cut off date for admission to medical/dental colleges has 30 September 2010. The stipulation of cut off date has not been done under any statutory regulation.

¶36

. This Court would take judicial notice of the fact that when the Common Entrance Test is conducted by the State and the merit at the said test governs admissions to medical, dental, engineering and pharmacy courses, a large number of students give first preference for medical/dental courses and when they do not succeed in securing admission to medical/dental courses in the first round, they unwillingly accept admission to engineering or pharmacy courses in the first round and as and when

wp-8109-10

SRK

vacancies are available in medical/dental courses in the second or third round, they switch over to the medical/dental course. Since 30 September 2010 was the last date for securing admission to medical/dental courses, the respondents particularly, respondent Nos.1 to 3 ought to have considered this aspect while fixing the cut off date for admission to respondent No.3 college. This Court, therefore, finds considerable substance in the petitioner's grievance that when five open merit candidates left the pharmacy course in respondent No.3 college in order to join medical/dental courses between 18 to 30 September 2010, the respondents ought to have accepted the petitioner's request for extending the cut off date beyond 18 September 2010.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the cut off date for admissions for medical/dental course was 30 September 2010, the petitioner's reasonable request for extending the cut off date was required to be accepted by the respondents, particularly for the students who were already prosecuting their studies in pharmacy course and were seeking admission to the pharmacy course in respondent No.3 college which, therefore, merely amounted to a kind of transfer from one college to another.

¶42

In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to admit the petitioner to the first year B. Pharm course in respondent No.3 college immediately upon receipt of this order subject to compliance with formalities like payment of fees.

wp-8109-10

SRK

We also record the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from the petitioner who is present before the Court that the petitioner shall pay the fees of the entire pharmacy course to respondent No.4 college, in addition to the fees the petitioner will obviously pay to the respondent No.3 college.

¶47

While this order is for directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to admit the petitioner to 1st year B.Pharm course in respondent No.3 Institute, the respondents are not precluded from giving similar treatment to other meritorious students strictly on the basis of merit in the State Common Entrance Test, provided they had already secured admission to pharmacy courses in other colleges in the State by 18 September 2010.

¶48

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Humdust service is permitted.

¶49

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD , J.

Dhaval U. Dinani v. Directorate of Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaval U. Dinani v. Directorate of Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biotor Industries Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Tata Capital Ltd.

Pathfinder Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

R.J. Shah and Co.Ltd. Vs Celerity Power Pvt. Ltd.

Chetan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Mr. Ravi Kiran Aggarwal and Ors.

Appasaheb Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharasthra and Ors.