Petitioner sought writ mandamus for tuition fee waiver benefit after the originally allotted TFW candidate declined admission. The Court held the benefit does not percolate and dismissed the application.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 10294 of 2014
19. 5.1.2017 Heard Mr. M.Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for the petitio
ner, Mr. B.Senapati, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of opp. party nos. 1 and
2 and Mr. C.A.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opp.party nos. 3 and 4.
2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus direct
ing the opp.parties for waiver of tuition fees of the petitioner by providing benefit under Tu
ition Fees Waiver scheme since the date of his admission i.e. academic year 2013-14 in Gandhi
Institute of Engineering and Technology, Gunupur as per the Guideline/Admission Instructions o
f OJEE-2013 by looking and treating the petitioner under that TFW category instead of General
category.
Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted a seat for admission in Bio-Technology
discipline/branch in GIET, Gunupur through OJEE Counselling in the year 2013 in General categ
ory as per the rank that he had obtained in the examination held for the purpose and according
ly, he took admission in the said college.
The petitioner had exercised his option for admission under TFW scheme as well
as the option for admission in General category. However, on account of his placement in lowe
r rank in the merit list, he was allotted with the seat in General category through OJEE Coun
selling in the year 2013. The rank of the petitioner was 12107 in the said OJEE- 2013 whereas
the other student who had taken admission in that very GIET, Gunupur with the benefit being pr
ovided to her under TFW Scheme had better position in so far as the rank is concerned.
3. The petitioners claim that since said candidate having better rank did not ta
ke admission in the college, he is entitled to the benefit of that TFW scheme being the other
candidate taking admission in the college having so opted for that category. This claim has be
en advanced after the process of Counselling is over.
It is countered by the opposite party no. 1 and 2 that once a candidate is all
otted a seat as per the rank, there remains no further scope for re-allotment to another seat
after the Counselling is over and that too in a changed category.
The petitioners case is that since the only candidate given the benefit under
TFW scheme being selected for admission, in the college did not accept the admission that bene
fit is to percolate to the petitioner being the candidate who had earlier exercised the option
for that category but not so granted because of that candidate standing with better rank comi
ng before him.
There is no dispute on this factual score that the said candidate given the be
nefit of TFW scheme did not go for it and this petitioner had exercised the option for being g
iven the benefit under that category which being not allotted to him because of rank obtained
in the examination, he had to accept the next option of General category as given . It is also
the position that this claim of benefit is asked for as the candidate of that category did no
t take the admission in the said college and it is said that in the situation the first option
of the petitioner has to be deemed to be automatically fructify for the purpose.
However, the question is if under that category, the petitioner in the given s
ituation can claim it as a matter of right that his first option is to be accepted.
4. On going the procedures as per the guidelines for the selection of candidates
as entitled to the benefit of the TFW scheme for which some seats in the colleges of the State
are reserved, with certainty it cannot be said that had the other candidate who was allotted
the seat in the college under TFW scheme would have declined to take admission, this petitione
r would have stood selected as the next candidate to get the benefit under that scheme in the
Counselling.
Thus it is not permissible to say that the benefit of the scheme is to percola
te to this petitioner in view of absence of the so selected taker of the same i.e. other selec
ted candidate as per the ranking; as it is not that this petitioner was the next in waiting fo
r the same so as to conclude that the benefit of that scheme under the circumstance if known t
hen, would not have gone to any other candidate who had also so opted with better ranking than
the petitioner and there would not have been any other taker for that. So merely because the
other candidate who had been allotted with the seat under that TFW scheme did not take admissi
on in the said college, the forgone claim of petitioner as per earlier option does not mature
afresh so as to claim his entitlement to the benefit under that TFW scheme after having alread
y been declined and then having accordingly taken the admission.
5. In view of the above discussion and reason, the writ application is found to b
e devoid of merit and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.
D. Das
h, J.
Aks
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether tuition fee waiver scheme benefit can percolate to a petitioner who took admission in the General category after the TFW candidate with a better rank declined.
Whether a candidate who exercised the option for TFW scheme but was allotted General category due to lower rank can claim TFW benefit retrospectively.
Petitioner
Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2
Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4
D. Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court