The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner who was higher in merit for a postgraduate course due to incomplete documents and failure to deposit admission fees by a demand draft at the time of counselling, holding the college's action justified.
Writ petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 8,2008
Dr. Amisha Kurl ................. .......................................... Petitioner
Versus
Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and others ................................................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection of respondent No.3 to the Course of DGO (Post Graduate Diploma in Obstetric & Gynecology) in the Christian Medical College & Hospital (hereinafter referred to as `CMC'), Ludhiana, and offer the seat to her, as she was higher in merit.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner passed her MBBS Course from CMC, Ludhiana, in December 2005 and also completed her internship from the aforementioned Medical College. The CMC issued Prospectus for Post Graduate Programmes 2008 for admission in various Post Graduate Diplomas and Degrees on 20.1.2008. The petitioner appeared in the written test and on passing the same also appeared in interview
[ 2 ]
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008
conducted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter a merit-list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No.78. On 8.2.2008 the first counselling was held. However, the petitioner was not offered any seat in the same. The second counselling was scheduled to be held on 28.3.2008. The petitioner went to attend the counselling and was called by the Registrar who checked all the original documents of the petitioner. The Registrar told the petitioner that her documents were not complete and that she should also deposit the fee by way of a Demand Draft. It is the case of the petitioner that she sought 30 minutes time to furnish the draft but no time was given to her and the admission has been given to respondent No.3 who was the next candidate in line and was lower in merit than the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the admission given to respondent No.3 who was lower in merit than the petitioner is wholly illegal as the petitioner had sought only 5 or 10 minutes time to bring the cash amount which was lying in her car. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner requested the Registrar a number of times to give her some time to bring cash/draft but her request fell on deaf ears and in fact the Registrar became so infuriated and irritated that he called the Security Staff to remove the petitioner from his office. Thereafter, admission was given to respondent No.3 who was below in merit than the petitioner. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner got prepared a Bank Draft in favour of CMC for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and handed over the same to the Registrar on the same day but the same was not accepted.
[ 3 ]
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008
Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has been averred that at the time of counselling the petitioner did not have the Certificate from the Principal regarding service in CMC, Ludhiana, and also the Demand Draft for payment of fee. When the petitioner was asked to produce the Certificate as well as the amount of fee, the petitioner is stated to have replied that she would produce the Certificate within a period of two days and as far the fee is concerned she would pay the same within a period of one week. This fact was duly recorded, `for want of Certificate' in the check-list of the petitioner which was written by the Registrar himself. The petitioner was told that she has to deposit the fee immediately. It has further been averred that when the petitioner was asked to bring the fee, at that time the family members of the petitioner came barging in the office of the Registrar and stated that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was lying in the room and the same shall be got immediately by them and the balance amount of Rs.1 lac shall be given to the respondents at a later stage after procuring the same from their relatives. The petitioner was apprised that the Demand Draft has to be for the full amount. At this stage, the husband of the petitioner is alleged to have taken out a Debit Card and the petitioner also took out her jewellery and put it on the table of the Registrar. It was at this juncture that the Registrar walked out of his office and called the Security Staff and asked them to remove the petitioner and her family members. It has further been averred that when the petitioner did not pay the amount of fee after waiting for half to one hour, as per the condition in the Prospectus, respondent No.3 was called in for counselling and as her documents were complete in all respects and she
[ 4 ]
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008
had also brought a Demand Draft which was far in excess of the fee demanded, therefore, admission was given to respondent No.3.
Counsel for the respondents submits that at page 15 of the Prospectus the procedure for allotment of the seats has been laid down. A perusal of Clause 5 of the procedure would show that candidates appearing for allotment of the seats by personal appearance had to bring the documents as mentioned in the Prospectus in original. It was also clearly mentioned at internal page 17 of the Prospectus that the full fee was to be submitted along with scrutiny of relevant original documents and the fee had to be submitted only in the form of Demand Draft in favour of “Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society”. It was also specifically laid down in the Prospectus that if the seat was not claimed by full payment of college fee, the offer would be made to the next applicant on the list on the basis of merit. The Prospectus also clearly stipulated on page 21 that an application received without fee would be rejected and disqualified. On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, Mr. D.S.Patwalia, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has submitted that as the application form of the petitioner was incomplete because she did not produce all the required Certificates and also the fact that the petitioner did not submit the requisite fee, hence admission was rightly given to respondent No.3 who was next in merit.
We have heard the counsel for the parties at length.
A perusal of the conditions laid down in the Prospectus Annexure R1/1 shows that a candidate was required to show all the documents as mentioned in the Prospectus at the time of counselling. A
[ 5 ]
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008
candidate was also required to submit the fee by way of Demand Draft at the time to counselling.
From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that not only were the Certificates of the petitioner incomplete inasmuch as the petitioner did not have a Certificate from the Medical Superintendent/Principal regarding the service in CMC, Ludhiana, the petitioner also did not have the fee ready with her as it is admitted by the petitioner herself that she sought half an hour's time to bring the same. When the College authorities demanded the fee, the husband of the petitioner came inside the office of the Registrar and stated that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was lying in the room and the balance amount would be given in a day or two. The petitioner is also alleged to have taken out her jewellery and put it on the table of the Registrar. It is because of this unruly behaviour on part of the petitioner and her family members that the Security Staff was called by the Registrar and the petitioner as well as her family members were removed from his office. It was only thereafter that respondent No.3 was called in for counselling and as her papers were complete in all respects and she had brought a Demand Draft amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- instead of Rs.1,75,000/-, hence, admission was given to her.
The conditions laid down in the Prospectus have the binding force of law and since the petitioner did not produce all the original documents at the time of counselling nor deposited the entire fee by way of a Demand Draft, therefore, respondents were fully justified in offering the seat to respondent No.3 who was next in the merit-list. It is not in dispute that although the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.3
[ 6 ]
C.W.P. No. 5478 of 2008
having been placed higher in merit but the fact remains that neither her Certificates were complete nor she had deposited the fee and, therefore, no illegality can be found in the action of the respondents in offering the seat to the candidate who was next in merit i.e. respondent No.3. No malafides have been attributed against any authority nor have the authorities gained anything by giving admission to a non-deserving candidate. If a candidate who is higher in merit does not deposit the fee at the time of counselling and needs a couple of days to deposit the same then the seat would have to be offered to the candidate who is next in the merit list because otherwise the admission process would never be complete as the candidate next in merit would have to wait till the fee is deposited by the candidate who is higher in merit. Therefore, it has rightly been laid down in the Prospectus that fee should be deposited immediately at the time of admission.
In view of the aforementioned facts, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE
8.5.2008 rupi
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of a higher merit candidate due to incomplete documents and failure to deposit the fee immediately justifies offering the seat to the next candidate in the merit list.
Dr. Amisha Kurl
Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana
and others
Ashutosh Mohunta
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
