Dismissed

Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son of Shri Om Prakash Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 May 2023SAW/354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of the appellant's admission to an MD Pediatrics course. The High Court held that the appellant never validly obtained admission as he failed to deposit required documents, did not claim admission for the next year, and changed his story regarding the fault of a clerk.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; the appellant is entitled to seek a refund of fees from the respondents.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son of Shri Om Prakash… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 354/2023

¶3

Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Om Prakash Saini, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Ashok Nagar, Station Road, Bagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Office of The Chairman, Neet Pg Admission/ Counseling Board-2020, Government Dental College (Ruhs College Of Dental Sciences), Subhas Nagar, Behind Tb Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Principal & Controller Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Mohan Lal (Regn. Id Pm-2490) C/o Through Principal S.n. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Judgment pronounced on ::: 11/08/2023 Judgment reserved on ::: 30/05/2023

¶15

BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE ANIL KUMAR UMPAN, J.)

¶16

(REPORTABLE)

¶17

The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner for assailing the order dated 18.04.2023

¶18

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶19

[SAW-354/2023]

¶20

(2 of 7)

¶21

whereby the writ petition (No.1243/2023) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-writ petitioner participated in the State Medical PG Seats (M.D./M.S.) Post MBBS DNB/Post MBBS Diploma Allotment-2022 and upon having secured higher merit, he was allotted seat in Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur (State Permit) of MD Pediatrics course against OBC NCL category in the second round of State Counselling. In pursuance thereto, the appellant-writ petitioner reported to Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur for his documents verification on 31.10.2022. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, he deposited the requisite fee and was permitted to attend the classes for sometime. However, as per the material which has come on record, it is reflected that since the appellant failed to deposit the required documents, his admission in MD Pediatrics course was cancelled by the respondents. Being aggrieved of cancellation of his admission in MD Pediatrics course by the respondents, the appellant-writ petitioner approached this Court by way of filing above writ petition asserting that he has already deposited the entire fee but inspite of that, his admission was cancelled which is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind. It was also asserted by counsel representing the petitioner that once the petitioner has joined the said course, the respondents are estopped to cancel his admission on the pretext of some mistake committed by the clerk. It was also argued that no third party rights would be affected as admittedly one seat in M.D. Pediatrics course is still lying vacant in the concerned college. The writ

¶23

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶24

[SAW-354/2023]

¶25

(3 of 7)

¶26

petition came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 whereupon, this appeal has been preferred.

¶27

Shri Himanshu Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant writ petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of the appellant-petitioner in correct perspective. He further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the appellant-petitioner had already deposited the fees which was not disputed by the official respondents. The appellant-petitioner was admitted in MD Pediatrics course and was allowed to attend the classes from 06.12.2022 till he received the show cause notice for cancellation of his admission. It is contended by counsel representing the appellant that the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be punished for the bonafide mistake and there was no reason with the appellant to not deposit the three required documents i.e., reporting application, checklist and fee receipt when all other documents had already been deposited by him with the officials respondents. He further contended that from bare perusal of the application dated 28.12.2022, it appears that on account of a bonafide mistake, some documents were not deposited and therefore, he cannot be punished for a bonafide mistake particularly when he was allowed to pursue the course. His alternative submission was that the case of appellant may be considered for next academic year as the appellant-writ petitioner is not at fault. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case :-

¶28

Anand S. Bijli vs Stat of Kerala & Ors. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 80

¶29

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶30

[SAW-354/2023]

¶31

(4 of 7)

¶32

Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman, JEE & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 5043

¶33

Asha vs Pandit BD Sharma University of Health Sciences reported in (2012) SCC Vol. 7, page 389

¶34

Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (Civil Appeal No.4242/2022, decided on 23.05.2022)

¶35

Rajiv Pratap Singh vs. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya through VC & Ors. (WPC No.1695 of 2019, High Cout of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided on 17.05.2019)

¶36

He thus, urged that the learned Single Judge has committed serious infirmity and illegality while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that after appreciating each and every aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has passed a well reasoned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. He contended that the counselling Board has to follow the time schedule for completion of the process of PG Admissions in view of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 225. It was also contended that the appellant did not submit all the required documents at the time of admission and he himself admitted his mistake in the letter dated 28.12.2022, written to the Principal and Controller of Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, which is available on record. He further contended that the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own

¶38

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶39

[SAW-354/2023]

¶40

(5 of 7)

¶41

wrong. Regarding the assertion of the appellant's counsel that one seat of MD Pediatrics is lying vacant, it was argued by counsel for the respondents that one seat in MD Pediatrics was shown vacant in the Mop UP round held on 21.11.2022 and same is shown in the seat matrix uploaded on 22.11.2022 and thereafter, when the petitioner failed to submit complete documents to the concerned college, the counselling Board considered the seat earlier allotted to the appellant and thereafter, as per the opinion given by the College, the counselling Board allotted the seat of MD Pediatrics in Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur in favour of respondent No.4 as per his merit. the Respondent No.4 reported to Dr S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur on 26.11.2022 and was given admission by the College where he joined on 13.12.2022. He thus, sought dismissal of the instant appeal.

¶42

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶43

From bare perusal of the record, it reveals that vide application dated 28.12.2022, the appellant-petitioner admitted that three documents i.e, reporting application, checklist and fee receipt could not be deposited by him under some bonafide mistake. However, at a later stage, on 10.01.2023, when show cause notice was issued to the appellant-writ petitioner, he gave reply to the said notice on 10.01.2023 itself, wherein a totally different story was narrated by him. He mentioned in the reply that on 06.12.2022, when he came to the office of the College for giving joining for the first time, he was misguided by a Clerk working there and as per his instructions, he wrote the application

¶44

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶45

[SAW-354/2023]

¶46

(6 of 7)

¶47

dated 28.12.2022 but actually, he was induced to write the said application. Further, as per the application dated 06.12.2022 (Annex.17), it is reflected that the petitioner submitted the said application to the Principal and Controller, S.N. Medical College, Johdpur and on the basis of the said application, he was allowed to join the studies/course. Mere granting permission to join the classes, does not mean that an incumbent was admitted to the course because admission to a course is always subject to fulfilling of all required conditions/parameters. Now, we come to the argument raised by the appellant's counsel that against the vacant seat, he was pursuing the studies so it cannot be said that he was not admitted against the vacant seat. We are of the considered view that the appellant cannot claim for admission to course simply on the ground that he was permitted to join the classes because actually, he was not given admission to the course and the seat was lying vacant till 13.12.2022 only when the same was filled up by giving admission to the respondent No.4. We are also of the considered view that it is not the case of cancellation of admission, as portrayed by the appellant. Rather, he was never given admission to the said Course.

¶48

So far as the alternative submission made by counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant-writ petitioner may be considered for the next academic year, is concerned, we find that a direction can be given to grant admission to a candidate in the next academic year where the action of the authorities is arbitrary and in breach of the rule and the candidate is otherwise found to be meritorious and has approached the Court at the earliest and without delay, which is not the situation in the present case. As

¶49

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

¶50

(7 of 7)

¶51

[SAW-354/2023]

¶52

the appellant himself admitted that he did not deposit the required documents within the stipulated time, therefore, the appellant cannot be given advantage of his own fault. We fortify our view from the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465. The judgments cited by learned counsel representing the appellant are not applicable in the present case as in all these cases, the petitioner(s)/ claimant(s) were not at fault and therefore only, liberal view was taken by the courts but in the present case, the appellant-writ petitioner has admitted his mistake in writing vide letter dated 28.12.2022. However, at a later stage, in reply to the show cause notice, the appellant-writ petitioner very conveniently, changed his stance and shifted his mistake onto a clerk of the Office. Thus the conduct of the petitioner is also not upto mark and clearly shows that he has not approached the Court with clean hands.

¶53

As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the view that the view taken by learned Single Bench while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner is absolutely justified. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. Consequently, the appeal is sans merit and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The appellant-writ petitioner would be entitled to seek refund of the fees from the respondents.

¶54

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶55

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶56

Sudhir Asopa/

¶57

(Downloaded on 28/11/2023 at 03:14:31 PM)

Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son of Shri Om Prakash Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son of Shri Om Prakash Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Saleem S/O Modh. Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahalaxmi Minerals Vs Union of India

M/S G.M. Mines Vs Union of India

Goenka Institute of Education Vs State Finance Departmentanr

Krishi Udyog Karmachari Union Rajasthan Jaipur Vs Office Liquidator Attached to Rajasthan High Court

Nikhil Choudhary S/O Shri Vijay Singh Vs Union of India