In a contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the educational authorities for failing to allot a vacant medical seat on merit, alleging violation of Supreme Court directions. The Court found the authorities had followed strict compliance with prior orders.
Petition dismissed; no contempt proceedings initiated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
cp5.2016
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2016 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4318 OF 2012
Ankita d/o Bhimrao Chavan, Age: 18 years, Occu: Education, R/o Girdharwadi, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Mr S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner; Mr S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1; Mr S. B. Patil (Bhosikar), Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 19th December, 2017
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr Vibhute, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at length.
cp5.2016
(2)
cp5.2016
(3)
Some seats were vacant at Sr.No.5 institute, namely, Ashwini Rural Medical College and Research Centre, Kumbhari, District Solapur. Mr Vibhute fairly submitted that the DMER made known the vacancy position available on its website. Mr Vibhute submitted that as per instructions of the notification dated 18th September, 2015, the petitioner was desirous of admission and she submitted application as per the said instructions. The said Institute Ashwini Rural Medical College and Research Centre published the list of selected candidates. The same is placed on record at Exh.F. The perusal of the said document shows that four candidates were selected in their respective categories, namely, Sapkal Sushma Suresh, Kashid Vishakha Sunil, Mathew Alita George and Jadhav Mayuri Navnath. The marks obtained by these four candidates at MH-CET level were 171, 166, 166 and 164, respectively. Mr Vibhute, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner obtained 161 marks at MH-CET level and was just below the last candidate i.e. Jadhav Mayuri Navnath and the petitioner was also falling in the same category of Mayuri Jadhav i.e. in the category of VJ candidates. Mr Vibhute submitted that the last candidate i.e. Mayuri Jadhav was informed to take necessary steps for the admission formalities till 29th September, 2015. Even the notification states that the last date for joining the selected candidates was up to 29th September, 2015. Mr Vibhute then submitted that on 29th it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Ms Mayuri Jadhav opted for some other college and failed to comply the formalities for seeking admission to Ashwini Rural Medical College till 29th September, 2015. Mr Vibhute then submitted that the petitioner then immediately approached the DMER on 30th September,
cp5.2016
(4)
2015 and submitted her claim in the said institute, namely, Ashwini Rural Medical College and Research Centre, as the last candidate Jadhav Mayuri Navnath opted for some other institution. Mr Vibhute then submitted that though as per merit list the petitioner was the next candidate who could have been allotted the seat, was not considered for allocation of seat. Thus, it is the submission of Mr Vibhute that the respondentsauthorities failed to follow the directions of the Honourable the Apex Court and willful disobedience of these respondents-authorities results in inviting an action for contempt. Mr Vibhute submitted that though there is failure to comply the directions of the Apex Court, the Apex Court granted liberty to the interested parties to take out contempt proceedings before the High Court, having jurisdiction over such institution/State, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court.
cp5.2016
(5)
directions of the Honourable the Apex Court published a notification about the vacant seats on 18th September, 2015. In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it is submitted that as per the notification dated 18th September, 2015, all the relevant information was made available to the candidates, who were desirous of submitting their claim for vacant seats. Learned AGP submitted that as per the notification, the seats remaining vacant after 22nd September, 2015, due to non-joining or cancellation of admission by the candidates at the above college only shall be filled in category wise by the respective colleges as per MH-CET 2015 Rules. Learned AGP submitted that as per the directions of the Honourable the Apex Court, there was wide publication of the notification in the newspapers as well as on the website. It is also submitted by the learned AGP that respondent No.1 i.e. the DMER is under no obligation to intimate about the vacancy of the seats personally to each candidate. It is by way of the notification that the information is made known to the candidates in general and desirous candidates seeking admission to medical or dental course in particular. It is further submitted by the learned AGP that on 29th September, 2015, if the last candidate failed to submit her claim, the petitioner could have lodged her claim at that point of time itself. The learned AGP submitted that even the representation submitted by the petitioner shows that on 29th September, 2015, the petitioner made no attempts to lodge her claim if Ms. Mayuri Jadhav opted for some other college. The representation further states that on 30th September, 2015, the petitioner visited the Head of the Department of MH-CET cell in the Government Dental College at Mumbai. Mr Dande then by inviting our attention to the affidavit-in-reply submitted
cp5.2016
(6)
that it is not the case that the petitioner is deprived of the medical education, but the petitioner is already admitted in the Government Dental College and she subsequently contested her claim for those seats which fell vacant in the private unaided medical colleges.
cp5.2016
(7)
absent on that day i.e. 30th September, 2015, there was no question of considering her claim and the vacant seat was offered to one Rohini Rathod, who had secured 132 marks at MH-CET level and was the topper candidate in the reported VJ candidates. Mr Patil submitted that as a cautionary measure, the respondent-institute video-graphed the entire process and as the petitioner was not present on 30th September, 2015, petitioner could not have been considered for filling up the vacant seat.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.)
(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
amj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents failed to follow Apex Court directions regarding publicity of medical admissions and filling of vacant seats.
Whether the petitioner has a prima facie case to initiate contempt proceedings against the educational authorities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.Referred¶18
Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors., reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 433.
Ankita d/o Bhimrao Chavan
Dr. Pravin s/o Harishchandra Shingare
Dr. Madhavi V. Ryate
Prasanna B. Varale
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
