Dismissed

Dr. Nupur Shukla, D/O Suresh Shukla v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Ruhs

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2019CW/1106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the common merit list for M.Sc. (Med) admissions, claiming unfair disadvantage due to varying question difficulties across educational groups. The bench quashed the petition, holding that admissions must follow Ordinance 278-F and that allegations of difficulty were conjectural.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the provisional merit list and direct fresh allotment was dismissed.

Dr. Nupur Shukla, D/O Suresh Shukla Vs Rajasthan… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

Dr. Nupur Shukla D/o Suresh Shukla, age 29 years, occupation Doctor, R/o Flat No.G-402, Pearl Green Acres Apartment, Shrigopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur 302019

¶4

Versus

¶5

Rajasthan University fo Health Sciences, RUHS Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302033 through its Registrar.

¶6

M. Sc. (MED) Admission/ Counselling Board 2018-19 through its Chairman Mr. Pradeep Jain, Principal, Government Dental College, Jaipur.

¶7

- - Respondents

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶10

Mr. Naman Maheshwari, for the petitioner. Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh, for respondents.

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the provisional merit list and the provisional allotment letter (round-1) dated 29-12-2018 and to further direct the respondents to issue another provisional merit list and allotment letter afresh.

¶13

The facts of the case are that the petitioner having passed the

¶14

¶15

BDS examination appeared for a common entrance examination 2018 for admission in the RUHS M.Sc. (Med). She secured 44 marks. Eligibility for admission to the RUHS M.Sc. (Med) common entrance Examination 2018 was spread over four distinct groups with different educational qualifications i.e. A-MBBS/ BDS; B- B.Sc. (Biology, Chemistry, Zoology); C-B.Sc. Biotechnology (Integrated)/ Microbiology; and D-B.V. Sc.& AH. The petitioner belonging to Group A aforesaid submits that each group being required to answer different questions on the subject matter of their under graduate study, the difficulty level at the common examination varied. This according to the petitioner is evident from the fact that while the topper of Group B i.e. B.Sc. (Biology, Chemistry, Zoology) obtained 80 marks out of 100, the topper of group A i.e. MBBS/ BDS, to which the petitioner belongs, scored merely 50 out of 100 marks. Candidates of group A were thus unfairly disadvantaged vis-a-vis those in Group B in contravention of their right to a level playing field within the ambit of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, submitted counsel. It has been submitted that the drawing of the common provisional merit list for all the four different groups competing for admission into RUHS M.Sc. (Med) thus cannot sustain. And further that the impugned provisional merit and allotment list have been prepared wrongly interpreting the judgment dated 16-22018 passed by this court in SBCWP No.3395/2018, titled Jyoti

¶16

¶17

Diwevdi vs. RUHS and another. The case of the petitioner is also that the Academic Council of RUHS had in view of the obvious disparity in evaluating candidates for admission to M.Sc (Med.) from disparate groups independently evaluated had recommended that selection of candidates for admission to M.Sc. (Med) be based on evaluating them in their own respective categories be done and thereafter on a percentile system or normalizing of marks of different groups for their inter se merit be ascertained. That recommendation has also been arbitrarily overlooked to petitioner’s prejudice, submitted the petitioner’s counsel. The provisional merit list and the provisional allotment letter (round 1) being based of raw marks obtained by candidates answering different questions be thus quashed and set aside.

¶18

Reply to the petition has been filed by RUHS. Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh submitted that admissions to M.Sc. (Med) have to be made strictly in accordance with Ordinance 278-F which provides that admission, shall be made strictly on basis of merit ascertained by a central (common) examination. Counsel submitted that the minutes of the meeting of 6-9-2011 of the Academic Council have only been partially and hence wrongly quoted by the petitioner. At that meeting certain amendments to ordinance 278-F as claimed by the petitioner were indeed recommended but not accepted. The

¶19

¶20

Academic Council reiterated, as reflected in the extant Ordinance 278-F that admissions to M.Sc. (Med) were to be made on the basis of merit at the common entrance examination for all eligible groups. Different Colleges for pursuing M.Sc. (Med) are thereafter to be allotted as per merit cum choice (preference) of the candidates. It has been submitted that the result of admission test for admission to M.Sc. (Med) was declared on 24-8-2018. The petitioner has secured 44 marks and presently stands allotted a college as per her merit and first choice and has since joined there. It has been submitted that the judgment dated 16-2-2018 rendered by this court in SBCWP No.3395/2018 only required preparing the merit list for admission to M.Sc. (Med) based only on the performance at the common entrance examination. Ordinance 278F, is not under challenge and has to be adhered to without variation. And it is not the petitioner’s case that the merit list has not so been prepared or admission made contrary thereto. The entire case of the petitioner is thus speculative and founded on a mere proposal at the Academic Council meeting of 6-9-2011 which was not accepted. The case at its foundation of differential degrees of difficulty for candidates of the form different groups seeking admission to RUHS M.Sc. (Med.) is also based on vague assertions of denial of level playing field and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Vagish Kumar Singh submitted that the criterion for admission

¶21

¶22

into a course at an educational institution lies in the domain of academic experts. Their decision, qua admission into M.Sc. (Med) encapsulated in Ordinance 278-F of RUHS Ordinances cannot therefore be interfered by the courts.

¶23

Heard counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.

¶24

A bare perusal of Ordinance 278-F indicates that it provides that selections for admissions to M.Sc. (Med) are to be made strictly on merit basis as per the central examination. That examination in the instant case was of 2018. In the meeting of 6-9-2011, the Academic Council has indeed considered a proposed amendment to Ordinance 278-F but it was not accepted. Instead it was decided, as evident from Ordinance 278-F as obtains, that admission to M.Sc. (Med) would be based on the merit of all eligible groups of candidates at a common entrance examination and their preferences. The petitioner has not challenged the said ordinance which alone is determinative. The merit list for admission to M.Sc. (Med) admittedly prepared with reference to the aforesaid ordinance cannot therefore be quashed. Criterion for admission into schools/ colleges is a matter for academic Experts. The court cannot interfere therewith unless such criterion is shown to be palpably arbitrary. Counsel for the

¶25

¶26

petitioner has not been so able to make out a case. That the petitioner’s evaluation at the common examination 2018 was on a degree of difficulty higher than that from other groups i.e. group B.Sc. (Biology, Chemistry, Zoology); group B.Sc. Biotechnology (Integrated)/ Microbiology; and group B.V. Sc.& AH is wholly conjectural. The petitioner is also otherwise estopped from laying a challenge to the drawing of the merit list as it has been been done in this petition only subsequent to her writing the RUHS M.Sc. (Med) Examination 2018 and finding herself lower in merit vis-a-vis others, albeit from other eligible groups. Her case is obviously an after thought.

¶27

Consequently, there is no force in the petition. Dismissed.

¶28

(Alok Sharma), J.

¶29

arn/

Dr. Nupur Shukla, D/O Suresh Shukla v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Ruhs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nupur Shukla, D/O Suresh Shukla v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Ruhs

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

Ramswaroop S/O Late Shri Laluram Vs Municipal Corporation Jaipur

Sunil Kumar Sahu S/O Shri Neki Ram Sahu Vs the State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Babu Singh Rajawat S/O Shri Phool Singh Rajawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bhopala Ram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Gurjar S/O Ramphool Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

Narayan Singh S/O Chhuttali Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan