Arpit Agrawal vs Chandigarh Administration and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—Petitioner has challenged the process of fresh admission, initiated through admission notice dated 1.8.2013 on the basis of which applications have been invited to fill up 50 enhanced seats in the MBBS course for the academic Session 2013-14, in the Government Medical College, Sector 2, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Centralized Counseling Procedure for the MBBS Course for the Session 2013-14, the last date for receipt of application form was 24.6.2013 upto 4.00 PM, in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. According to schedule of admission, after the receipt of applications upto 24.6.2013 till 4.00 PM, list of eligible candidates was to be displayed on 12.7.2013 after 4:00 PM. The 1st counseling was fixed for 17.7.2013 to 19.7.2013 at 9:30 AM and second counseling was provided for the vacant seats, if any, and the date for this round of counseling was to be notified on the website of the college.

Out of the total 50 seats, 15% seats were meant or All India Quota, which comes to 7 seats, whereas remaining 85% seats, which comes to 43 seats, were meant for UT Pool. There was practically only one counseling for UT pool and the second counseling was there, if the seats remained vacant however, third counseling was provided for the candidates of All India quota.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent, vide an order dated 15.7.2013, postponed the Centralized counseling of MBBS & BDS Course for the session 2013-14 till further information without assigning any particular date because the respondents were expecting enhancement in the seats because of a meeting of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India [for short ''the MCI''] held on 14/15.1.2013 in which the issue of enhancement of seats was discussed for the existing Government Medical Colleges. The decision was taken by the MCI in its 11th Meeting held on 2.7.2013 and enhancement of intake capacity of seats in Government, Medical Colleges from 50/100 to 100/150 at the Undergraduate level was approved. Resultantly, a notification was issued by the MCI on 8.7.2013, for enhancing the seats as stated above and it was provided that only such existing Medical Colleges shall be eligible to apply under the Regulations who are enjoying minimum ten years of standing from the date of grant of initial letter of permission by the Central Government and the MBBS qualification awarded by them stands included in the 1st Schedule of the India Medical Council Act, 1956 [for short ''the Act].

There is no doubt that the Government Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh was eligible to apply for further enhancement of seats to the extent of 100 seats. Thereafter, the Government of India issued a notice dated 20.7.2013, mentioning that there is a possibility of addition of seats in existing colleges/addition of seats/new colleges in round-3 of counseling, which means that the candidates, who were already registered online on or before 24.6.2013 were apprised of this fact that they may attend the counseling of the colleges in which they had applied, if they have failed to get admission in the 1st and IInd counseling meant for All India quota. It is also clarified in the said notice that the candidate who failed to register their name in the stipulated time for online counseling shall forfeit the claim for a seat under All India quota. Similarly a candidate, who failed to join the allotted college by the last date of joining, shall also forfeit the claim of a seat under All India quota. No extension of joining time was allowed under any circumstances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents knowing well about the enhancement of 50 more seats for admission in the MBBS Course, deliberately postponed the counseling on 15.7.2013 without giving any specific date and eventually held the counseling on 29/30.7.2013 in which all the 43 seats meant for UT pool were filled up along with all the 7 seats meant for All India quota.

It is submitted that the respondents have now issued a new time schedule for receipt of application for enhanced seats in Undergraduate Courses, as per which the applications were to be received by the Board of Governors in Supersession to the Medical Council of India upto 15.7.2013, incomplete applications were to be returned on 20.7.2013 and the grant of letter of permission by the Board of Governors in Supersession of the Medical Council of India was 31.7.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question involved in this petition is "as to whether cut off date for submitting the application i.e. 24.6.2013 being part of the prospectus, can be extended with the enhancement of seats in the same course?"

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even an application which is received late i.e. after the cut off date, though posted earlier, has not been allowed to be accepted by this Court in terms of the decision rendered in Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University and Others, . He has further submitted that 50 enhanced seats are not meant for the candidates, who had not applied on or before 24.6.2013 and could not be offered to them for admission.

In reply, filed by the respondents, it is averred that the MCI had invited proposals from various Government Medical Colleges and Institutions for enhanced seats of MBBS Course on 8.7.2013. The respondents applied for the increase in the MBBS seats from 50 to 100 on 12.7.2013 which was received by the MCI on 15.7.2013. The MCI pointed out certain deficiencies in the letter of request made by the respondents, which were duly removed and compliance report was submitted on 26.7.2013 and ultimately the respondents received letter of permission in the evening of 31.7.2013. It is also submitted that since the respondents had applied for the enhancement of seats and were quite sanguine of the acceptance of their request, therefore, the counseling meant for the original 50 seats was postponed to 29.7.2013. It is further submitted that the counseling on 29.7.2013 had to be carried out as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatishgarh and Others, because in terms of the aforesaid decision, the MCI had issued a public notice on 25.8.2012 in which the last date for joining the allotted college and course was 31st of July.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also argued that the public notice dated 01.8.2013 has been given for inviting fresh applications, to fill up the enhanced seats, is to attract brilliant students, who did not apply earlier under the impression that there were only 50 seats in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is at No. 76 in the provisional merit list and would not be able to get the seat even if he is also considered against the enhanced seats.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also vehemently argued that the allegation of the petitioner qua mala fide is not made out from the record as no particular instance has been quoted against any person, who is at the helm of the affair or any student, who is alleged to have wielded his influence for the purpose of getting the seat in the enhanced seats, which has now been granted by the MCI.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment in the case of Priya Gupta (Supra) is not at all applicable in this case, because that pertains to the academic year 2012-13 whereas in the present case the admissions are being made in the academic year 2013-14. It is further submitted that a new schedule has been given by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, in which IA No. 29 of 2013 was filed and has been allowed on 4.7.2013 with the following order:

Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the Union of India, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for MCI and Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned counsel appearing for CBSE.

I.A. No. 29 is allowed in terms of prayer (a).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to para No. 1 of the application, namely, IA No. 29 of 2013, which reads that the instant application is being filed by the Medical Council of India seeking modification of time schedule for admission to MBBS course for academic year 2013-14. The prayer which has been granted by the Supreme Court in the said I.A., provided in Clause (a) is that "permit the applicant to modify the schedule for process of admission to MBBS course in All India quota and State quota/institution for academic year 2013-14 as per letter of Government of India dated 24.6.2013". It is submitted that since the aforesaid prayer has been allowed by the Apex Court, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India issued a letter dated 24.6.2013 to the MCI with regard to ''Amendment in Schedule for All India NEET-UT Counseling 2013'' according to which the second round of counseling has been fixed for 1.8.2013; reporting at the allotted medical/dental college against round 2 on Ist to 10th August 2013; compilation and publication of net vacant seats on 11th to 12th August 2013; fresh choice submission and locking for 3rd round, by already registered candidates of certain categories on 13th to 16th August 2013; process of seat allotment-round 3 on 17th and 18th August 2013; round 3 result publication on 19th August 2013; reporting at the allotted medical/dental college/institutions against round 3 on 19th to 29th August 2013; transfer of vacant seats to State quota on 30th August 2013 and in the note it is prescribed that the last date upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason is 30th September 2013 and; commencement of MBBS first year session - from 12th August 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents had applied for the enhanced seats on 12.7.2013 and thereafter on 15.7.2013 itself, a notice was issued postponing the counseling which was fixed for 17.7.2013 to 19.07.2013. It is submitted that no date was given at that time when the counseling was postponed and on 22.7.2013 notice was issued for the counseling to be held on 29.7.2013 on the pretext that the schedule has been fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Priya Gupta (Supra) though the said schedule was made for Session 2012-13 and the fresh schedule was given on the asking of the MCI for the admission in the Medical Colleges of India in the case of Mridul Dhar and anr. (Supra).

He has also argued that in Para 2 of the reply, it is alleged by the respondents that counseling for MBBS seats was postponed in view of the pendency of decision on the proposal sent to MCI for approval of 50 additional MBBS seats in Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32, Chandigarh.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that there are two channels of admission in the MBBS Course in which 15% quota is for the candidates of All India Rank and 85% quota for UT pool. Two sources of counseling have been provided; in the case of All India Rank there are 3-rounds of counseling whereas for the UT pool 2-rounds of counseling is there.

In the first counseling dated 29.7.2013, admittedly in the seats including 15% quota of Ail India rank were consumed but after receipt of enhanced 50 seats, the respondents have invited applications by issuing notice dated 1.8.2013 allegedly to attract more candidates, who could not have applied earlier i.e. on or before 24.6.2013.

It may be noticed that admission to 15% quota of All India Rank even in the enhanced seats is to be offered to the candidates, who have already been registered on or before 24.6.2013, as per the notice, appearing on the website of the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Government of India, dated 20.7.2013.

Thus, on the one hand, the candidates of 15% All India rank would get admission in the enhanced seats on the basis of their registration dated 24.6.2013, meaning thereby, no opportunity is meant for those candidates to apply in terms of the notice dated 1.8.2013 and on the other hand candidates applying in the UT pool to the extent of 85% of the enhanced seats, would get fresh opportunity which they had lost earlier by not applying in time i.e. on or before 24.6.2013.

Even otherwise, the stand taken by the respondents is not correct because if the respondents have to go by the schedule given in the case of Priya Gupta (Supra) then they could not have issued notice for admission on 1.8.2013 in order to invite applications upto 6.8.2013 and fixing the counseling on 8.8.2013 and otherwise after the order in IA No. 29 of 2013, in the case of Mridul Dhar and another (Supra), the Apex Court has relaxed the schedule for the purpose of admission for the academic year 2013-14.

I am not impressed with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents that notice dated 1.8.2013 has been issued to invite fresh applications to attract more brilliant students, who could not have applied earlier under the impression that there were only 50 seats, because candidates, who are aspiring for admission in a particular college, are always quite vigilant to submit their applications on or before the cut off date and those who are left out because of their own mistake cannot be provided another chance in the garb of enhanced seats, to apply once again in order to diminish the prospects of those candidates who had already applied on or before 24.6.2013 but could not get admission because of their low rank.

Thus, to my mind, the enhanced 50 seats are not meant for the candidates, who have not applied earlier i.e. on or before the cut off date 24.6.2013, and are meant only for those candidates, who had applied for admission on or before 24.6.2013; and the action of the respondents for inviting applications for admissions while issuing notice dated 1.8.2013 is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical.

Accordingly, finding the writ to be meritorious the same is hereby allowed and the impugned notice dated 1.8.2013 is quashed. But before parting, it may be pointed out that counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his second prayer made in the writ petition, at this stage, and has reserved his right to press it, if need arises.

Accordingly, the right of the petitioner with regard to second prayer is kept reserved and is not adjudicated in this writ petition.