Ashwani Kumar Bedi vs State of Punjab and Others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Ashwani Kumar Bedi after securing 77 per cent marks in the All India Secondary School examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education, in Mar. 1985, qualified in the Pre-University (Medical) and B.Sc. Part-I Medical examinations, from the Punjab University, Chandigarh, by securing about 81% and 73% marks respectively. He appeared in the competitive entrance examination for admission in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course held in June, 1987 by the Punjabi University, Patiala, and in that examination secured 166 marks in the result declared on 10-7-1987. He was a good sportsman and had to his credit two State level ''C'' grade certificates and three National level ''B'' grade certificates. These certificates are annexed to the petition. When he applied for admission to M.B.B.S. course from the category of sports quota, he furnished alt the certificates and information in the prescribed pro forma.

In spite of furnishing all the five certificates, the Selection Committee only took notice of Annexure P7, one of the sports certificates, and on that basis he was not given admission. When this matter became known to the father of the candidate, on 20th Aug. 1987, vide Annexure P10, he made representation and brought all facts to the pointed notice of the concerned authorities, The student himself filed representation dt, 3-9-1987, Annexure PI 1, and again reiterated about his five sports certificates of the two categories and wanted that his case be considered on the basis of the five certificates. The representation made by the father was rejected, as intimated vide letter Annexure P14 dt. 8-9-1987. By then the selection of the candidates had not been announced. Before the selection was announced, the candidate filed this writ petition on 14-9-1987 impleading the seven candidates as private respondents to the writ petition, out of whom only one had got 168 marks as against 166 marks of the petitioner, and all others had obtained marks ranging from 165.5 to 110, and were below him in the merit obtained in the Pre-entrance Medical Test (for short ''P.M.T.''), and were sought to be given admission under the Sports category by wrongly denying admission to him iii that category. The list of the candidates for admission was issued after the filing of the writ, which did not include the name of the writ petitioner.

The stand of the official respondents is not clear because one is trying to place the burden on the other saying that he is not the answering respondent. Stand about the furnishing of all the five documents, regarding sports participation by the petitioner at the State and National levels and obtaining five certificates is not denied categorically. The petitioner has annexed all the five sports certificates and also the fact that he had brought it to the notice of the admission authorities repeatedly before selection of candidates was announced, as is noticed above. Therefore, at the time of hearing of the writ petition it was beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner obtained 166 marks in the entrance examination and had five sports certificates two of State level ''C'' grade and three of National level ''B'' grade to his credit.

On the aforesaid data of the petitioner the counsel for the State Government had virtually to concede that respondents 4 to 10 who are the students admitted under the sports category obtained marks in the entrance examination less than the petitioner, and had sports certificates not more than the petitioner. Once that is so, the petitioner had to be preferred and had to be given admission and the last candidate who obtained the minimum marks, that is, 110 could not be admitted. This student is Sanjeev Bhalla-respondent 7 and instead the petitioner should have been admitted.

Probably in the mind of the admission authorities it was lurking whether academic merit has to be preferred or pre-eminence in the sports. That is why they took petitioner''s one sport certificate in view and gave preeminence to sport participation and since private respondents had participated more than once, they were preferred in spite of the fact that the petitioner had obtained 166 marks in the entrance examination whereas the 7 respondents obtained marks ranging between 165.5 to 110. Now the petitioner has been shown to have obtained merit both in the entrance examination as well as in sports. He has five certificates to his credit. Therefore, viewing the case from any angle he had to be admitted before admission was offered to the seven private respondents.

In Khalid Hussain (Minor), Represented by Father Dr. Akthar Hussain Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department, Madras and Ors, , it was held that if there was no guideline for determining the comparative eminence between different candidates falling in the same class, selection has-to be made on the academic merit and not pre-eminence in sports. A Division Bench of this Court in (Miss Neelum Bansal v. State of Punjab) CWP No. 5368 of 1986 took the similar view. From this angle also, the petitioner had to be preferred as compared to the private respondents because there is great difference of marks in the PMT examination between the petitioner and the private respondents.

Adverting to the relief to be granted to the petitioner it has to be kept in view that the course had started in Sept. 1987 and by now the candidate having the lowest merit has undergone course for a period of about four months and no useful purpose would be served in ousting him to make a place for the petitioner because the petitioner may not be able to complete his lectures, and make up his studies. Since the petitioner is not at fault as he came to the Court at the earliest possible opportunity, the proper relief in the circumstances deserves to be granted is in the same way as was done by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chander Garg v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 Punj 476. The Division Bench had issued the following directions under these circumstances:

"but direct that the admissions already made shall not be disturbed on this count and further order that the petitioner shall be admitted to the first year MBBS Class 1966 to the State Medical College. Rohtak, Patiala or Amritsar, irrespective of the fact he would or not be entitled to such admission in competition with the candidates who may offer themselves for admission in the said class during this year."

Somewhat similar matter cropped up for consideration in Khalid Hussain (Minor), Represented by Father Dr. Akthar Hussain Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department, Madras and Ors, . There the admission of a student to MBBS course was found to be wrong but his candidature was riot cancelled because of the various following factors :

(i) he had been admitted in Engineering College and gave up that seat and joined MBBS course.

(ii) he had undertaken six months'' course of studies.

(iii) the writ petitioner was found entitled to relief even if selection of the respondent was set aside as there were others in the waiting list.

In the present case the petitioner has been found entitled to the admission because as many as seven persons below him have been admitted. Therefore, under the circumstances instead of displacing the last wrongly admitted candidate, it would be just and proper to follow the course, which was adopted by the Division Bench in Ramesh Chander Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .

Accordingly, I allow this writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 1000/- and direct the official-respondents that instead of giving admission to the petitioner in the course for the year 1987 he shall be admitted as the first candidate to the first year of MBBS course starting in the year 1988 without displacing any of the students in the course started in 1987.