AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J.—An advertisement was made inviting applications for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course in various subjects including "OBSTERICS and GYNAECOLOGY" for short "OG" in the Assam Medical College. Dibrugarh and the Gauhati Medical College, Gauhati for the academic session 1982-83. For "OG", there were four seats in the Degree Course and four seats in the Diploma Course for admission into the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh whereas there were four and six seats for the Degree Course and Diploma Course respectively for admission into the Gauhati Medical College. After holding the requisite examinations, four candidates were selected for admission in "OG" (MD Course) in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, and four in the Gauhati Medical College, Gauhati. Similarly, four candidates were selected for admission into the Diploma Course in the Assam Medical College and six candidates were selected for admission in the Gauhati Medical College. None of the Petitioners was selected for Degree Course. In the Diploma Course Dr. Abul Hussain, Petitioner in Civil Rule No. No. 824/83 was selected, but that apart, he secured the second place in the waiting list in the M.D. Course as well. Other than Dr. Abdul Hussain, none of the Petitioners was selected for the Degree Course and/or the Diploma Course; but there was a common waiting list for the Post Graduate and the Diploma Course in "OG". As stated earlier, D. Abdul Hussain secured the 2nd place in the waiting list for M.D. Course. Dr. Shamalendu Das, Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 937/83, secured 3rd place and Dr. (Mrs) Rina Dutta, Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 756/83, secured the 5th place in the waiting list for the Diploma Course in ''''OG". Dr. (Mrs) Farida Begum, Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 755/83 had already passed her final MBBS Examination from the Gauhati Medical College in 1972, completed her internship for one year, and, obtained her Registration being No. 5483. She underwent a period of horsemanship for 7 months and was appointed Registrar of the Gauhati Medical College in ''Anesthesiology'' and worked as such for 1� yrs. In due course in 1975 she was appointed Registrar in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the Gauhati Medical College. In 1976 Dr. (Mrs) Farida was selected for admission in the Post Graduate Diploma Course in "O and G" and in 1977 obtained the diploma while she was holding the post of Registrar. She had also applied for admission in Post Graduate Degree Course in O and G. It is, therefore, seen that Dr. Md. Abul Hussain was placed second in the waiting list in O and G (MD) securing 283.15%, marks, whereas Dr. Shyamalendu Das and Dr. (Mrs) Rina Dutta were in the waiting list (or the diploma course securing third and fifth places respectively securing 271.93% and 271.30% marks. The Government decided to raise the strength of admission in O and G Course from 4 to 6, in the Gauhati Medical College, Gauhati and selected Dr. (Mrs) Rina Dutta and Dr. (Mrs) Farida Begum by their letter dated June 1, 1983. They joined the M.D. Course having, fulfilled the conditions, paid necessary fees etc. and were continuing their studies but suddenly some time in June, 1983 they received the letter dated June 18, 1983 that the Govt. had decided to admit them into the Post Graduate Course in O and G Department during the session 1982-83 as they were candidates from the teaching department. However, the same bad to be recalled in view of several factors, which were not indicated in the impugned letter dated June 18, 1983 marked Annexure-V in Civil Rule No. 824/83. The Government withdrew the permission granted for admission of the two candidates to the Post Graduate Course in O and G Department for 1982-83. On receipt of the said order they approached the authorities without any result and thereafter came up before this Court and stated their plight in Civil Rules 755 and 756 of 1983 and prayed that they should be allowed to continue their studies pending disposal of the cases, As they were studying in Post Graduate Course, devoted their time, energy and money and no ground was stated for withdrawal of their admission in the Course, the High Court by orders dated 24.6.83 directed that they should continue their studies. Although liberty was granted to the Respondents to ask for amendment, alteration or cancellation of the said order, neither the College authorities nor the State Government asked for cancellation of the said orders. It appears, therefore, that by virtue of the order of the State Government dated 1.6.83 coupled with the order of the Court, Dr. (Mrs) Rina Dutta and Dr. (Mrs) Farida Begum have almost completed one year out of 2 years'' course. It is thus seen that rightly or wrongly the State of Assam admitted them to the Post Graduate M. D. Course for the session 1982-83 in ''O and G'' Course in the Gauhati Medical College, Gauhati. by raising the strength of admission from 4 to 6. We are of the opinion that since'' these two students have already completed about one year, it will be unjust and unfair to cancel their admission at this stage by giving a direction to remove their names from the rolls of the College. In this regard we are guided and governed by the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, .
However, we would like to observe that the order of admission issued by the Govt. in favour of Dr. (Mrs) Rina and Dr. (Mrs.) Farida were undoubtedly contrary to the relevant rules of admission, A number of eligible candidates were deprived of and two of them have come up before us, namely. Dr. Md. Abul Hussain and Sri. Shyamalendu Das. Undoubtedly, they have stronger claim. Dr. Hussain was second in the waiting list of the M.D. Course and be should have been given a seat in consequence of the increase in the number of the seat for admission in Gauhati Medical College. Similarly, Dr. Das was higher in rank in the waiting list than Dr. Rina Dutta. Dr. Farida''s name was nowhere in the waiting list. It is really misfortune that Dr. Abul Hussain and Dr. S. Das did not ask for cancellation of the stay order and/or did not obtain an order from this Court to permit them to be admitted in place of Dr. Rina Dutta and Dr. Farida Begum. Cases of irregular admission in academic institutions arc mounting to such a proportion that some strong steps need be taken to control the arbitrary assessment of marks, wrong and/or illegal admission granted to those who are less eligible. This is also a sensitive human issue. We feel that direction need be issued by this Court, which we hereby do, that the sensitive human issue should be resolved expeditiously so that the selectors are held in high esteem. The authorities charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must have before them the sensitive issue that they are perfuming public duties and that they should perform their duties fairly and objectively. If admission of students to such noble institutions are made on "extraneous consideration" and/or the authorities violate the norms set-forth by the Rules and Regulations, a sense of frustration, dejection, resentment is bound to generate, and we feel that it has already been generated. It would generate vicious effect in the minds of unfortunate young persons who are wrongly or purposely left out. They speak of students indiscipline in educational institutions but the authorities as well as the selectors must bear in mind that they should be shining examples of ''discipline'' before making any allegation of indiscipline by the students. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of unfair "manipulation", if any, made on their behalf by those who are interested. Let us extract the observations of their Lordships in Punjab Engineering College (supra):
Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. Indiscipline in educational institutions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But, the problem which the Courts are faced with in these cases is, that it is not until a period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made that the intervention of the Court comes into play. Writ petitions involving a challenge to such admissions are generally taken up by the High Courts as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course by the time the decision of the High Court is pronounced. A further appeal to this Court consumes still more time, which creates further difficulties in adjusting equities between students who are wrongly admitted and those who arc unjustly excluded. Inevitably, the Court has to rest content with an academic pronouncement of the true legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul. Once you are in, no one will put you out. Law''s delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions.
We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly it will have to be directed that the names of the students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institution. We might have been justified in adopting this course in this case itself, but we thought that we may utter a clear warning before taking that precipitate step. We have decided, regretfully, to allow the aforesaid 16 students to continue their studies, despite the careful and weighty finding of the High Court that at least eight of them, namely, the seven wards of employees and Ashok Kumar Kaushik, where admitted to the Engineering course in violation of the relevant rules and regulations.
It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admission contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Govt. cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstance is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made.
The observations are aptly applicable in these cases. Their Lordships have warned that if such things continue, the names of the students wrongly admitted should be struck off. We would humbly venture to say that what we propose to do in future is also to award heavy costs against the erring authorities or persons responsible for unfair tactics and/or manipulation, so that the unfortunate students who are deprived of their rightful places might be suitably compensated. In fact, at one stage we decided to direct that the names of Dr. Rina and Dr. Farida should be struck oil from the roll and to award heavy cost against the authorities responsible for inducting them in place of better and meritorious candidates, but we leave such a course of action for the future.
As usual, the reply of the Respondents in the instant case as well is that they are not in a position, to increase the number of seats from 6 to 8 to accommodate the two more deserving candidates, namely, Dr. Md. Abul Hussain and Dr. Shyamalendu Das as the authority would not sanction further additional seats. The Supreme Court did not entertain such submission and directed that those who are responsible must pay for the lapses and the wrong done to the deserving candidates should be rectified and their Lordships indicated the solution, directed the authorities to increase the strength of seat in pro-portion to the wrong admission made. Since, in the instant case, Dr. Rina and Dr. Farida have already completed their course for one year we direct, on the authority of Punjab Engineering College (supra), that the Respondents must increase two seats and the said students should be permitted to continue and complete their M.D. course in O. and G. It is also crystal clear that grave injustice has been caused to more meritorious students whose ranks were higher than those of Dr. Rina and Dr. Farida. They are-
Name of Candidate % of marks
OBSTETRIC and GYNAECOLOGY (M.D.)
Dr. Isha Haque Mandal 283.19
Dr. Isha Haque Mandal 283.15
Dr. Bipin Chandra Talukdar 280.22
Dr. Tapan Kumar Phukan 280.22
D. G. O.
Dr. Maheswar Talukdar 274.69
Dr. Mahesh Medhi 272.70
Dr. Shyamalendu Das 271.93
Dr. Krishna Sarathi Dowerah 271.42
For the next academic year i.e. 1983-84, the Respondents shall have to increase two additional seats and admit at least two candidates according to their merit or rank. If those who are at the top do not accept the offer, naturally those who are down below shall get admission in the courses. It may be said that we have granted relief to the non-applicants. But we derive our strength from the law laid down by Supreme Court in the State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Another, where the Supreme Court directed the State Government to admit 30 more student and observed.
The selection of these 30 students will not be confined to those who have moved this Court or the High Court by way of writ, proceedings or appeal. The measure is academic excellence, not litigate persistence. It will be thrown open to the first 30, strictly according to merit measured by marks secured.
The same principle was followed in AIR 1981 1127 (SC) . In Miss Arti Sapru and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, allowing the writ petitions of the candidates who were wrongly denied admission to the Medical College, Pathak J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:
The candidates who will be displaced is consequence have already completed a law months study and in order to avoid serious prejudice and detriment to their careers it is hoped that the State Govt. will deal sympathetically with their cases so that while effect is given to the judgment of this Court the rules may be suitably relaxed, if possible by a temporary increase in the number of seats, in order to accommodate the displaced candidates.
In Punjab Engineering College (supra), their Lordships directed admission to the 16 additional vacancies for the next academic year, that is, academic year 1983-84 and ordered that the additional vacancies should be made in accordance with merit on the basis of the list which was prepared for the academic year 1982-83 for the Chandigarh group of students and the general group of students. In the instant case, we also direct that admission to at least two additional vacancies for the academic year 1983-84 in ''O and G'' (M.D.) Course should be increased and/or displaced candidates listed in the waiting list should be admitted in the said session, strictly according to merit measured by marks secured.
In the result, we quash the impugned order dated June 18, 1983 issued by the State Government canceling the admission of Dr. (Mrs.) Farida Begum and Dr. (Mrs.) Rina Dutta and direct the Respondents to allow them to complete their course for the academic session 1982-83 in ''O and G'' (M.D.) course. Insofar as the displaced candidates who are more meritorious than Dr. Farida and Dr. Rina, they shall be admitted in ''O and G'' (M.D.) course for the academic session 1983-84. If necessary, rules may be amended to accommodate at least two unfortunate candidates. The Respondents shall take necessary steps to increase at least two seats in the Gauhati Medical College for ''O and G'' (M.D.) course fore the year 1983-84. These are necessitated in view of wrong and illegal admission ordered by Respondents in favour of Dr. Farida and Dr. Rina.
In the result, we accept the petitions to the extent indicated above. However, we make no order as to cost.