B. Jayalakshmi vs Selection Committee, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and others

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the admission of the petitioner into the I year M.B.B.S. Course in Kurnool Medical College through his proceedings dt. 28-9-1993. This order is based on the decision of the Selection Committee communicated by the University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, In order to give effect to the decision of the Selection Committee, the impugned order has been passed.

The petitioner appeared for EMCET-1992. She secured Rank No. 3959. She was allotted a seat under the Army quota as her father served the Indian Air Force. She joined the College on 6-6-1993. She was studying the Course till the impugned order dt. 28-9-1993 was communicated. It may be stated that before joining the College, the petitioner joined in the S. V. Agricultural College, Tirupathi as she got admission in that College on the basis of the Common Entrance Test. She was admitted in the Agricultural College on 28-12-1992 as seen from the fees receipt produced before me by the petitioner''s counsel. On securing the seat, she discontinued her studies in the Agricultural College and joined in the Medical College. It is stated that as she got admission in the Medical College, she did not appear for the EMCET-1993 which was held in June, 1993. About 4 months after the admission into the Medical College, the impugned action was taken cancelling her admission. The reason for cancellation as given in the impugned order is that "she did not come under the purview of the army seats". But it is not correct. In the additional counter filed by the Registrar of the University of Health Sciences on 3-2-1994, it is clarified that the petitioner was, in fact, eligible for consideration against the seats reserved for army personnel and ex-servicemen. But it is stated that the petitioner was not in her turn to come up for selection under the army quota, as per the comparative merit amongst the candidates coming within the purview of that quota. It is stated in the counter that "there are 77 candidates above the writ petitioner, who could not come up for selection by virtue of lesser ranks they obtained". It is not clear whether those 77 candidates are in the general pool or come under the category of army quota. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner could not have obtained a seat under the army quota according to her merit ranking, but for a mistake committed by the Selection Agency, at least there is one woman candidate with Rank No. 1220, who could have claimed a seat reserved for Army Personnel and Ex-servicemen''s children. She got herself un-pleaded as the 4th respondent in this writ petition.

Now the question is whether the cancellation of admission 4 months after the petitioner joined the Medical College, is legal and valid. As already noticed, it is the Selection Committee which had taken a decision to cancel the admission of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent (Principal) has implemented that decision by issuing the impugned proceedings. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether the Selection Committee has got power to cancel the selection/admission long after the admissions were closed. This question must be answered in the negative having regard to the relevant rules governing the cancellation of Selections and Admissions. The relevant Rules embodied in Rules for Admission into First year MBBS/BDS Courses for the Academic Year 1992-93 are as follows:

"15. Powers of the Selection Committee:

The Selection Committee shall have the power to revise its decision in any case and to direct the Principal concerned to take further action either to select or to cancel the selection or to admit or cancel the admission before the closure of admissions.

Power of the Principal:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the Principal of the college may at any time either suo motu or on an application made by any person after due and proper enquiry, if he is satisfied that the candidate has furnished incorrect information or enclosed false certificates, or fraudulently obtained admission, may, for the reason to be recorded in writing by order cancel his admission, Provided that no such admission shall be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity for showing cause as to why his admission should not be cancelled.

Power of the University of Health Sciences:

The A.P. University of Health Sciences may either suo motu or on an application made to them call for and examine the records relating to any selection or admission or cancellation thereof in respect of the admission made by the concerned authority, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such selection or cancellation and pass such order in relation thereto as they deem fit including cancellation of the selection already published or admission already made, provided that the University may, before cancelling such selection or admission, give an opportunity to the authority and to the person affected to show cause against such cancellation."

Thus, it is clear that the Selection Committee could exercise the power vested in them under Rule 15 only before closure of admissions. Rule 14 of the said Rules lays down that the admission shall be closed by 30 days from the date of commencement of regular session for the particular batch. The fact that the period of 30 days have elapsed from the commencement of the regular session by the date of the impugned order, is not in dispute. On the expiry of 30 days from the date of commencement of the course for the selected students, the Selection Committee becomes functus officio and ceases to have an powers to interfere with the selections or allotments already made. Of course, in a proper case, the University of Health Sciences could have exercised that power under Rule 17. Though the learned counsel for the impleaded respondent has suggested that the Selection Committee is an integral part of the University of Health Sciences, it is difficult to accede to that contention. There is a well-marked distinction between the Selection Committee constituted by the University for the ad hoc purpose of making selection-and the University itself. Under Rule 17, it is the Competent Authority of the University who has been conferred with the power to take action under Rule 17. The Selection Committee, as already stated, goes out of the picture on the expiry of 30 days after the closure of admissions. Thus, the decision to cancel the selection or admission was taken by an incompetent authority which was not possessed of the jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The next fatal infirmity which 1 have noticed is that the order in question was passed without giving a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is obvious that the impugned order adversely affect the career of the petitioner and visits her with serious consequences. The elementary principles of natural justice would require that in such a case, the proposed action should have been disclosed to the petitioner and the final decision could have been taken only after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In fact. Rule 17 which of course has not been invoked in the instant case, specifically casts an obligation on the University to give an opportunity to the person affected, to show cause against the cancellation. This gives an indicia that the Rules themselves contemplate the application of principles of natural justice in the matter of cancellation of selections or admissions. It cannot be said that [the admission of the petitioner being only provisional in nature, there is no obligation to comply with the principles of natural justice. The ad mission cannot eternally remain provisional. In fact, Rule 12 of the said Rules indicates that it is the selection which is provisional and the provisional selection does not confer any right for admission. Here, the events that have taken place are past the stage of selection. Even from the date of admission. there is a long time-gap preceding the impugned order. In such a case, it cannot be said that the admission was still provisional in nature and that no rights have accrued to the petitioner. Nor can it be said that the impugned order does not prejudicially affect the petitioner. Viewed from any angle. I am of the view that there is a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice in this case. It is well settled that an order passed in contravention of principles of natural justice is null and void.

Coming to the last aspect of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can legitimately invoke the principle of equitable estoppel having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. May be, she is less merited than the impleaded respondent, but she is not to be blamed for the mistake committed by a Body incharge of selections. There is no semblance of suggestion of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner. In the very nature of things, there cannot be any such suggestion. Based upon her selection and allotment to the Medical College, the petitioner gave up her course of study in the Agricultural College and quite justifiably refrained from appearing for ESMCET -- 1993. Thus, she altered her position to her detriment. To be told 4 months after her admission that she has to quit the College for no fault of hers, would be a travesty of justice and it would lead to more unjust results than what would otherwise ensure by reason of overlooking a more meritorious candidate. On these facts, I must hold that the Selection Committee and the University Authorities are estopped in equity from taking a belated step, of cancelling the admission of the petitioner though irregular it was. It is no doubt true that the impleaded respondent who had a genuine claim for a seat, has lost the opportunity of getting the admission. But as I already observed, the petitioner will suffer more detriment and more serious prejudice than the impleaded respondent if her selection is disturbed at this stage.

Another relevant aspect to be mentioned is that the impleaded respondent filed W.P. No. 6891 of 1993 complaining against the non-allotment of requisite number of seats under the army quota and seeking a declaration that she shall be treated as a local candidate within the Osmania University Region for admission into Medical Colleges under the army quota. The writ petition was partly allowed on 11-8-1993 by directing one more seat to be provided against the army quota. In that writ petition, the contention regarding the propriety of selection of the petitioner was also raised, though the petitioner was not a party. But the ground of challenge was on a different ground. This Court rejected the plea of the impleaded respondent with regard to the allotment of a seat to the petitioner. This judgment was rendered on 11-8-1993 by which lime the admission of the petitioner was not cancelled. W.A. No. 1088 of 1993 filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dt. 23-11-1993. Having thus failed in the writ petition and writ appeal, it is not open to the impleaded respondent to challenge the selection of the petitioner on a different ground in the second round of litigation. There is no apparent explanation as to why a direction could not have been sought from the Court in that writ petition or writ appeal. If she failed in that attempt, that cannot be made aground for invoking equities in her favour in a writ petition filed by another candidate. Thus, I do not think that the claim of the impleaded respondent that she is more merited than the petitioner, would come in the way of granting relief to the petitioner. Of course, I am not for a moment saying that the case of the impleaded respondent is not genuine or that the University Authorities should not consider her case if necessary by allotting an additional seat. This is a matter which is left to the University and the State Government. If there are any vacancies in the army quota or any other un-filled seat, there should not be any difficulty at all in accommodating the impleaded respondent. It is open to the impleaded respondent to approach the concerned authorities and I hope that the representation made by the impleaded respondent will receive earnest consideration in the hands of the concerned authorities.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned order dt. 28-9-1993 and there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith admit the petitioner into the I Year M.B.B.S. Course and allow her to continue the studies. I make no order as to cost.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been permitted to resume the studies in spite of the interim direction granted by me on 28-12-1993. The learned Standing counsel for the University submits that as the writ petition was itself coming up for final hearing, she was not admitted into the Classes. Even if the University Authorities are under such bona fide impression, the petitioner should not suffer on account of the inaction of the University Authorities in re-admitting her. Therefore, I direct that for the period from 28-12-1993 upto her re-admission into the College, the benefit of attendance shall be given to the petitioner in full. The 3rd respondent is directed to extent to the petitioner the facility of assistance or coaching to the extent found necessary in view of her long absence occasioned by the impugned order.

Petition allowed.