Dismissed

Pradnya Kishor Vibhute v. Association of Management of Unaided Pvt. Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Sept 2012WP/8525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking to change her admission category from open to OBC after she had already been allotted a college seat. The Court held that once a category change was permitted from reserved to open, reversing it mid-stream would disrupt the admissions process intended to cover a large number of applicants within a fixed schedule.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pradnya Kishor Vibhute Vs Association of Management… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

dmt 1/4

¶2

wp8525-12.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8525 OF 2012

¶6

Pradnya Kishor Vibhute. ..Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

Association of Management of Unaided Pvt. Medical & Dental Colleges.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Pooja Thorat i/by Mr. V.M. Thorat for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. F. Poonawala i/by Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare for Respondent No. 1.

¶12

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

07 SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

In March 2012, the Petitioner filed an application form with the Respondent claiming to belong to the OBC category. On 26 June 2012, the Petitioner filed a preference form claiming to belong to the OBC category. On 9 July 2012, the Petitioner submitted an application for change of category from the OBC category to the Open category. This request, the Court is informed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, was accepted since the Association follows the practice of allowing a student to alter the category from 'reserved to 'open' though not vice versa. Subsequently, by a notification dated 15 July 2012 candidates were permitted to file new preference forms since the total number of medical seats for the MBBS Degree Course were enhanced by 250 because two new colleges were permitted to admit students and one college was allowed an enhancement of intake capacity. On 3 August 2012,

¶16

dmt 2/4

¶17

wp8525-12.sxw

¶18

the Petitioner filed a new preference form claiming this time as an OBC candidate. On 16 August 2012, the Petitioner was allotted a college in the first round of admissions as an open category candidate. On 17 August 2012, the Petitioner requested the Respondent to consider her category as an OBC candidate, which change has not been permitted.

¶19

Two submissions have been urged on behalf f the Petitioner : (i) Firstly, it has been submitted that the Admissions Brochure of the Respondent had provisions which were inconsistent as regards the stage at which the Caste Validity Certificate had to be filed. At one place it was stated that the Caste Validity Certificate has to be filed while seeking admission to the college which the candidate has been allotted (para 12.6.8). On the other hand, para 5 of Annexure–D requires that candidates claiming constitutional reservations in the original application form, must file the Caste Validity Certificate at the time of filling in the preference form failing which the category claimed will not be granted. In the present case, it was, therefore, submitted that the student would have been confused by these conflicting provisions and, therefore, applied for a change of category from OBC to open since at that stage she did not have a validity certificate. Subsequently the student received a Caste Validity Certificate dated 7 July 2012 and should hence be allowed to change the category from Open to OBC; and (ii) Secondly, it has been urged that once new preference forms were invited following the increase in seats, the earlier preference form would stand obliterated.

¶20

On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner is only taking a chance after an allotment of a medical seat has been made on 16 August 2012. It is urged that if the Petitioner, as is now submitted, was uncertain about when the Caste Validity Certificate was required to be

¶21

dmt 3/4

¶22

wp8525-12.sxw

¶23

submitted, there was no reason, when she filed the original application form and the original preference form to claim as an OBC candidate. On 9 July 2012, the Petitioner made an application for change in category. The Association allowed the Petitioner to do so and processed her application as an open category candidate. A change in category now cannot be permitted. Though candidates were allowed to fill in fresh preference forms, it is urged that this would not justify the student changing the category. If students were allowed to change their category mid stream, once the admissions process has commenced, that would derail the process. Moreover, having regard to the large number of applicants and the need to observe the time schedule for admissions prescribed by the statutory bodies, such applications cannot be entertained mid-way through the process.

¶24

Para 12.6 of the Admissions Brochure issued by the Respondent requires candidates to report to the college in accordance with the allotment made by the Respondent together with all the certificates and documents. Amongst the documents set out in para 12.6.8 is the Caste Validity Certificate and the NonCreamy Layer Certificate issued by the appropriate authorities of the Maharashtra Government where applicable. Hence Para 12.6.8 makes it abundantly clear that the caste validity certificate has to be submitted when the candidate reports to the college when the allotment is made. This is how the Petitioner understood the requirement as well. The Petitioner originally submitted an application form in March 2012 and the preference form on 26 June 2012 claiming as an OBC candidate. Subsequently on 9 July 2012, the Petitioner applied voluntarily for a change in category to the open category. We do not find any merit in the submission that the Petitioner was misled by the Admissions Brochure. If that was so, there was no reason for the Petitioner originally to claim as an OBC candidate while filling in the

¶25

dmt 4/4

¶26

wp8525-12.sxw

¶27

preference form on 26 June 2012. The Association in accordance with its practice permitted the Petitioner to effect a change in category from 'reserved' to 'open' though the reverse is not permitted. When the Petitioner filed a new preference form, that was only because there was an increase in the number of seats available. That would not justify the Petitioner changing the original category in which admission was claimed, for the admission for this year mid stream in the admission process. Once a candidate has applied for admission on a specific basis (in the present case the change in category from OBC to Open being allowed on the request of the Petitioner), the Respondent would be justified in contending that a further change in the category could not be allowed. Frequent changes in the category under which a candidate has claimed, is liable to place the admissions process in a state of uncertainity. It is necessary to follow the rules with a degree of certainty so as to obviate any disruption of the admissions process. Cases such as the present cannot therefore be looked at in isolation, divorced from the impact which results on the admissions process. Allowing the request would certainly mean at this stage that the interests of other students would be affected. The Petitioner has already been allotted a college in the open category. If an option for betterment is available in accordance with the Admission Rules, the case of the Petitioner should be duly considered in accordance with the prevailing Rules and Regulations for betterment. For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition.

¶28

The Petition accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶30

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

Pradnya Kishor Vibhute v. Association of Management of Unaided Pvt. Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradnya Kishor Vibhute v. Association of Management of Unaided Pvt. Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bengal Mill Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jayesh Chunilal Doshi and Ors.

The Institute of Cost Accountants of India Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Shashi Pankaj Madhukar @ Pankaj Kumar M. Deole Vs Shirish Kundar and 6 Ors.

M/S Karan Developers Vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.