Dismissed

Rakesh a Saradva v. Saurashtra University through Vice Chancellor

Gujarat HC5 Jul 2012SCA/8928/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat rejected a petition challenging the denial of admission to an MD course. The petitioner failed to produce original educational certificates required by the university. The Court held that the university was correctly bound to follow its rules and could not admit the petitioner based on an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petition summarily rejected; no admission granted.

Rakesh a Saradva Vs Saurashtra University through… — Education and Admissions | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/8928/2012

¶2

1/6

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8928 of 2012

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶8

=========================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge}

¶14

¶15

=========================================================

¶16

RAKESH A SARADVA - Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY THROUGH VICE CHANCELLOR - Respondent(s)

¶19

=========================================================

¶20

Appearance :

¶21

M/S THAKKAR ASSOC.for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,

¶22

=========================================================

¶23

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶24

Date : 05/07/2012

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶27

SCA/8928/2012

¶28

2/6

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

“(A)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order and/ or direction, quashing
and setting aside the action of respondent
University in denying the admission to the
petitioner to the course of MD, TB & Chest as being
unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further
be pleased to direct the respondent university to
forthwith admit the petitioner to the course of MD,
TB & Chest on such terms as may be deemed
appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest
of justice and equity;

¶31

(B)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondent university to grant provisional admission
to the petitioner to the course of MD, TB and Chest
on such terms as may be deemed appropriate by this
Hon'ble Court, pending the admission, hearing and
final disposal of this petition;

¶32

(C)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondent university to keep one seat vacant in the
course of MD, TB & Chest and further be pleased to
restrain the respondent university from proceeding
further with the conduct of the course, pending the
admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition;

¶33

(D)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such
other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case may kindly be granted;”

¶34

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of present petition are as follows:-

¶35

SCA/8928/2012

¶36

3/6

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

1. that the petitioner has completed the
course of MBBS from M.P.Shah Medical
College, Jamngar and thereafter, attempted
the All India Post Graduate Medical
Entrance Exam for the Post Graduate
Course, conducted by the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New
Delhi, in which he was placed at Serial
No.4249 and also attempted the entrance
examination for post graduate course held
by the Saurastra University, in which he
was placed at Serial No.51.

¶39

2. For the admission in Post Graduate Course
under All India Category, in second round,
the petitioner got the admission in
Diploma Course in Child Health at
S.S.Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
and as per the requirement, the original
certificates of the petitioner were
deposited with the said college on
01.06.2012. In the third counseling, the
petitioner was offered the Diploma Course
in Child Health Care in Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh and accordingly, the
relieving letter for upgraded candidate

¶40

was issued and the original certificates
as well as the fees were returned back to
the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner
got the admission in the Medical College,

¶41

SCA/8928/2012

¶42

4/6

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Jabalpur and as per the requirement the
petitionerdepositedtheoriginal
certificates with the Medical College,
Jabalpur. The Dean, Medical College,
Jabalpur issued a certificate on
19.06.2012, certifying that the college
has retained the original certificates.

¶45

3. Simultaneously, the counseling took place
at Saurashtra University and the
petitioner came to know about the second
round of counseling through public notice
published in 'Sandesh' daily.

¶46

4. On the day of second counseling i.e.
29.06.2012, when the petitioner appeared
before the Post Graduate Medical Admission
Committee, Saurashtra University and the
courses of 'MD, TB & Chest' and 'MS
General Surgery' were available to the
petitioner, the committee asked the
petitioner to produce the original
documents. In response, the petitioner
produced a copy of certificate, issued by
the Dean, Medical College, Jabalpur,
certifying that the original certificates
are retained with them. However, the
petitioner informed the committee that he
can obtain the certificates within 24
hours. Therefore, the Committee informed
the petitioner that his case cannot be
considered for admission to the course, on

¶47

SCA/8928/2012

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

5/6

¶50

account of non-production of original
certificates. The petitioner submitted
before the Committee that he is also
prepared to file Affidavit/ Undertaking to
the effect that if admission is given to
the petitioner, he would produce the
original documents within 3 working days,
but, the Committee refused to accept the
same.

¶51

5. Hence, this petition.

¶52

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Pahwa has
submitted that the action of the respondent-
University is completely unjust, unreasonable and
arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. He has further submitted
that there was no requirement of producing the
original certificates at the time of interview in
the public advertisement nor the same was
intimated to the petitioner.

¶53

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. It
appears that the respondent-University has
declined to grant admission to the petitioner, on
account of inability on the part of the
petitioner of producing necessary original
certificates,regardinghiseducational

¶54

qualification. It is a mandatory requirement that
a candidate produces all the certificates in
their originals, in order to get admission in any
course. In the present case, the petitioner

¶55

SCA/8928/2012

¶56

6/6

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

herein was unable to produce the same, when it
was directed by the respondent-University. The
petitioner cannot claim that, since the relevant
certificates are with other University, the
respondent-University must consider his case. The
respondent-University is bound by its rules and
regulation, according to which, it is to grant
admission to the relevant course. Since in the
present case, the petitioner had failed to
fulfill the requisite criteria of supplying
relevant original documents at the time of
admission process, the respondent-University
rejected to grant admission to him to the course
in question. The petitioner cannot submit that he
may be granted admission, on the basis of any
Affidavit and/ or Undertaking, which he may be
willing to file. It is understood that the
University governs by the statutory rules, would
not grant admission in contravention of its own
rules.

¶59

5. In view of the same, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent in not granting the admission to the petitioner. Hence, I find no merits in the petition and the same is summarily rejected.

¶60

..mitesh..

Rakesh a Saradva v. Saurashtra University through Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh a Saradva v. Saurashtra University through Vice Chancellor

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

Labhudan Manubhai Gadhvi Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

District Education Officer Vs Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai

District Education Officer Vs Christi Prasannkumar Koranbhai

Hansaben K Parvadia Vs Municipal Commissioner

Municipal Commissioner Vs Hansaben K Parvadia

Nanjibhai B Vagadia Vs State of Gujarat