Dr. B. Bhulakshmi vs University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and others

The petitioner along with the 3rd respondent, having obtained degree of MBBS, appeared for the Post-Graduation Medical Entrance Examination for the academic year 1998-99. The petitioner got 49th Rank whereas the 3rd respondent got 45th Rank. The petitioner belongs to Group ''A'' whereas the 3rd respondent belong to Group ''D'' of Backward Class community. Both of them belong to the Andhra University area and have applied for admission into the MD course with specialisation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Both of them have also opted to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam as their first preference. In pursuance of the counselling conducted for the admissions both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent appeared on 21-10-1988 and they were allotted seats in MD course of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. However, it appears that one Dr. Hemalatha, who belongs to Group ''D'' of BC Category got 32nd Rank and was allotted a seat in MD course of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Guntur Medical College, Guntur under the open category. As she belongs to BC ''D'' Category she claimed preferential allotment as per her option to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, she was reallotted a seat in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. Apprehending that the petitioner may be disturbed she made a representation to the Selection Committee stating that she belongs to BC ''A'' Category and she is the 1st Ranker in the category and whereas the 3rd respondent belongs to BC ''D'' Category and if a candidate is to be disturbed to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha, who belongs to BC ''D'' Category a candidate belonging to the same group is to be disturbed. The Selection Committee, it appears, reallotted seat to the 3rd respondent at Guntur Medical College, Guntur in order to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha, who had secured a higher rank as she was entitled for such preferential treatment. Thereafter, the Registrar of the 1st respondent passed the impugned order alleged to be on the representation of the 3rd respondent. By the impugned order the Registrar of the 1st respondent shifted the petitioner from the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam to Guntur Medical College, Guntur and the 3rd respondent from the Guntur Medical College, Guntur to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. The said action of the Registrar is assailed in this writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the Registrar is without jurisdiction as the process of selection and allotment of the seats are completely vested in the Selection Committee and if there is any mistake or omission on the part of the Selection Committee it should be represented to the Selection Committee and the order passed by the Selection Committee shall be final and binding on the candidates and cannot be questioned, more so, after the closure of the admissions. It is also contended that the order is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice as the order was being passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Counsel that there are four seats reserved in respect of the BC community. The said four seats are further sub-divided among the different groups and as per the said division one seat is available to BC ''A'' ; two seats to BC ''B'' and one seat to BC ''D'' Category. Therefore, the allotment should be as per the said sub-division, it is also contended by the learned Counsel that in respect of BC ''A'' group the petitioner is the only candidate that was allotted a seat. The learned Counsel also contended that Dr. Hcmalalha, who belongs to Group ''D'' of BC category got a seat on merit in the open category by virtue of her higher rank. If a reallotment is to be effected as per her preferential option, then a candidate belonging to the same group is to be disturbed and not a candidate of a different group. The learned Counsel also contended that had Dr. Hemalatha opted under the BC Category the 3rd respondent would not have got the chance of selection at all being lower in merit when compared to Dr, Hemalatha, who secured 32nd Rank. The learned Counsel also contended that after completing the admissions, classes have started on 11-1-1999 and according to Rule 12 of the Rules of Admission issued by the University of Health Sciences, the admissions shall be closed one month after the commencement of the course and no order can be passed alter one month of the closure of the admissions. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed on 16-2-1999, which was passed after the closure of the admissions arid therefore it is invalid. The learned Counsel also contended that even under the provisions of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 it is only the University that has got the power and not the Registrar and therefore the order is without jurisdiction.

The learned Standing Counsel for the University, on the other hand, opposed the contention of the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order was passed in terms of G.O. Ms. No.996. In accordance with the said GO the available seats for Open Category are to be filled first on merit and then only the seats reserved for various categories are to be filled. In the process, however, if a candidate belongs to the reserved category got the allotment of a seat in the open category on merit that candidate will have the option to choose a seat, which is reserved for the reserved category. In the said process, it is stated that Dr. Hemalaiha, who was selected in the open category in the Guntur Medical College, Guntur was given the shifting to the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, where two seats are reserved for the BC Category. As there are only two seats reserved for the BC Category at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam and two candidates were already allotted seats under the BC Category one of the candidates was required to be shifted to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur. In the process a less meritorious candidate has to be shifted to Guntur Medical College, Guntur. But due to inadvertence, the Selection Committee has shifted the 3rd respondent. The said mistake of the Selection Committee was corrected by the Registrar after considering the representations made by both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As their representations were considered and an order was passed there is no need to give any further notice before passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel also referred to the provisions of the University Act and contended that the impugned order passed by the Registrar is within his jurisdiction.

The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has narrated the events that took place in the process of selection and contended that the 3rd respondent was selected to the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapalnam on 21-10-1998. She paid the fee and when she has gone for the submission of the bond as required, then only she was informed that she has to go to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur and asked to surrender the original allotment allotting to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. As there was no option left to the 3rd respondent she had surrendered the original allotment and joined at Guntur Medical College, Guntur. Thereafter she made a representation. After considering her representation the petitioner was shifted to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur being less meritorious among the BC Category. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioner has no fundamental right to get allotment of a seat in the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam and as such she cannot complain of her shifting to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur. The learned Counsel also contended that as the petitioner was not deprived of a seat she couldn''t complain of deprivation of any rights vested in her. Once the selection process is completed allotting the seats and when the question of shifting comes normally the less meritorious candidate has to be shifted as per their preference and accordingly the petitioner was shifted from Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur and the order passed by the Registrar is legal and valid and docs not call for any interference as the 3rd respondent has been continuing in pursuing her studies at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam.

From the above rival contentions the issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order shifting the petitioner from Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam to Guntur Medical College, Guntur is legal and valid.

It is clear from the Annexure II of the Regulations for the Admission to the Post-Graduation Medical Courses in the 1st respondent-University that there are 14 seats In MD (O&G) course in Andhra/Nagarjuna University area Medical Colleges. Out of the said 14 seats, four are reserved for Backward Classes. Among the Backward Classes the same are further allocated to different groups. According to the said allocation one seat to BC ''A'' and two seats to BC ''B'' and one seat to BC !D'' are available. Out of four seats reserved to the Backward Classes two seats are reserved in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, one seat in Guntur Medical College, Guntur and one seat in Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada. Further the admitted facts are that the counselling was held on 21-10-1998 and in the counselling the petitioner under BC-A and the 3rd respondent under BC-D groups were allotted seats in MD (O&G) and as per their options the admissions are given in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner paid the fee on'' 21-10-1998 and also executed the requisite bond on 23-10-1998. Similarly the 3rd respondent also paid the fee on 21-10-1998 and went along with the bond for submission on 23-10-1998. But at that time the 2nd respondent informed her that she was shifted to Guntur Medical College, Guntur. According to the 3rd respondent as she was not given any time she was forced to go and join in Guntur Medical College, Gunlur.

One Dr. Hemalatha, who also belongs to BC-D group got 32nd rank and was allotted a scat in MD (O&G) and was given admission in Guntur Medical College, Guntur under open category. As her first option was to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnain and as she is meritorious having obtaining her rank under BC-D group, she was given shifting to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. Apprehending that she may be disturbed the petitioner represented on 22-10-1998 to the Selection Committee that the petitioner being meritorious in BC-A group and as Dr. Hemalatha belongs to BC-D group if she is to be shifted to Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam being higher in rank than the 3rd respondent, who is lower in rank in BC-D group she should be shifted to Guntur Medical College, Guntur and not the petitioner. The 3rd respondent also made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 23-10-1998 claiming her right for continuance at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnain. The (Selection Committee shifted the 3rd respondent to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur in order to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha, who was meritorious when : compared to the 3rd respondent. Later, on the representation of the 3rd respondent the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University passed the impugned order.

According to the petitioner the impugned order is bad on the grounds- (1)That the Registrar has no jurisdiction; (2) The selections made by the Selection Committee shall be final and binding on the candidates and the same cannot be questioned after closure of the admission; (3) The impugned order was passed without notice and thus in violation of the principles of natural justice; (4) The order passed after the closure of the admissions i.e., beyond one month after the commencement of the classes and against the Admission Rules; and (5) As the shifting was to accommodate to BC-D group candidate only BC-D group candidate should be shifted and not others.

Taking up the first ground, the petitioner''s contention that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, the Standing Counsel for the respondent-University has contended that Rule 17 of the Rules for Admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses framed in G.O. Ms. No.260, dated 10-7-1997, empowers the 1st respondent-University to pass appropriate orders either suo motu or on application including the cancellation of the admissions. Here the further questions that arise for consideration are whether the University referred to in Rule 17 can be equated to the Registrar of the University and whether notice is not required to be issued to the petitioner. Though, a counter is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent by the Registrar, it is not stated there that the Registrar is empowered to exercise the powers of the University with reference to Rule 17. Section 2(w) of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') defines ''University'' means University of Health Sciences established u/s 3. As per Section 3 the University of Health Sciences consists of a Chancellor, a Vice-Chancel lor, a Rector, if any, an Executive Council and an Academic Council. Chapter III of the said Act refers to the Officers of the University under which Section 14 is one, which refers to the Registrar. As per the said section the Registrar shall be a whole time paid Officer of the University appointed by the Executive Council. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 enumerates the powers and duties of the Registrar. The Registrar shall have the power to enter into agreements, sign the documents and authenticate records on behalf of the University and shall exercise such other powers and discharge such other duties as may be prescribed by the statutes. From the above it is clear that the Registrar is not vested with the powers of the University as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules. Further, the proviso to Rule 17 contemplates an opportunity to be given to the Selection Committee and to the individual before cancellation of the admission. Admittedly, in the present case the Registrar passed the impugned order without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The contention of the respondent is that the impugned order was passed after considering the representations of both the parties and hence there is no need to issue any notice. I am unable to appreciate the said contention. The facts show that the petitioner did not make any representation either to the University or to the Registrar. It is only the 3rd respondent, who filed representations to the Registrar and not even to the University as provided in Rule 17. The proviso to Rule 17 contemplates an opportunity to be given even before cancellation of an admission. The said proviso equally applies to any adverse order, which affects the rights of the individual. Therefore, the impugned order suffers on both the counts i.e., the Registrar has no power to pass the impugned order and the said order was also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The other ground of attack is that the selections made by the Selection Committee are final and binding on the candidates and therefore the impugned order is bad in law. I do not find any merit, as Rule 17 of the Rules specifically retains the power of superintendence with reference to the selection of admissions in the University. Apart from that the Selection Committee is creature of the University and as such it has got the power over the proceedings of the Selection Committee.

The next ground is relating to the violation of the principles of natural justice. This ground was already decided in favour of the petitioner under the first ground.

The next ground is that the impugned order was passed after the closure of admissions. As per Rule 12(1) of the Rules, the admissions shall be closed one month after the commencement of the course. According to the petitioner the course commenced on 11-1-1999. Hence the admissions shall have to be closed one month thereafter i.e.; 11-2-1999. The impugned order was passed on 16-2-1999 and the consequential order was served on the petitioner only on 23-2-1999 relieving the petitioner from the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatndm. The order was passed after the closure of the admissions and in contravention ''6f Rule 12, which was held to be mandatory by this Court in the case of Dr. K. Anna Kumari v. A.P. University of Health Sciences 1990 (1) ALT 455. In the counter the respondent did not deny this position and in fact the courier is silent on this aspect.

The fifth ground is that as Dr. Hemalatha belongs to BC-D group, if any shifting is required to accommodate her the candidate belonging to that group alone is to be disturbed. In fact, the Selection Committee did the same but the Registrar passed the impugned order on the ground that the 3rd respondent is a 45th Rank holder whereas the petitioner is 49th Rank holder. According to the allocation of seats there is one seat reserved for BC-A and one seat for BC-D group. Because Dr. Jlemalatha has got a seat in the open category, the 3rd respondent got the allotment. In the original selection itself if the said Dr. Hemalatha had opted to a seat under BC-D group the 3rd respondent would not have secured a seat at alt. Even though Dr. Hemalatha got a seat under open category, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court she is entitled for allotment of a seat in a college as per her option under the reserved category. Therefore, in order to accommodate Dr. Hemalatha a candidate is to be disturbed from the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. As the 3rd respondent is the allottee of a seat in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam under the same category, who is a less meritorious when compared to Dr. Hemalatha it is only the 3rd respondent who has to be disturbed. It is only the 3rd respondent, who got the benefit of allotment of a seat under BC-D Category by virtue of not opting a seat under the said category by Dr. Hemalatha, even though she is meritorious when compared to the 3rd respondent. One of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that when a case of shifting comes, the shifting has to be effected according to the merit irrespective of the division of the category into different groups. The broad category of the candidates alone has to be taken into consideration and not group wise and if so taken the petitioner is less meritorious when compared to the 3rd respondent and therefore the order passed by the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University is valid. 1 am unable to accept the said contention of the respondents. Though there are four seats to the BC Category they are divided to different groups viz., A, B, C and D. One seat is available under the BC-A and another seat in BC-D groups. The petitioner is the only meritorious in BC-A group and therefore she is entitled to a seat of right and it is not proper to ignore the bifurcation of the seats group wise.

The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has advanced another contention that the 3rd respondent was allotted the seat at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam and she is continuing. Therefore, there is no need to disturb her at this stage as no rights of the petitioner are affected. The 3rd respondent, having represented to the Registrar against the shifting from Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam to the Guntur Medical College, Guntur and having obtained an order in her favour there is absolutely no justification for her to contend now that the petitioner''s rights are not affected and there is no need to disturb the present position. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent is clearly devoid of merit. Every candidate seeking for admission aspires to get admission into prime institutions and therefore the entire dispute is only revolves round to get admission in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam.

Under the above circumstances the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.