Navjot Kaur vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

N.K. Sodhi, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the admission granted to respondents No. 3 and 4 in the first year of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery course (for short UDS) for the academic session 2000-2001 in Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Amritsar (referred to hereinafter as the Institute). Petitioner and these respondents sought admission in the Foreign students category (NRI and green-card holders), NRI sponsored under the payment category. Candidates in this category were to be selected on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by them in the compulsory subjects of 10+2 examination or any equivalent examination of a Foreign/Indian University or Board recognised by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (hereinafter called the University). They were not required to sit in the entrance lest. Candidates who had passed their Pre-Medical or enquivalent examination from outside the State of Punjab were required to obtain an eligibility certificate from the University and migration certificate from the concerned University/Board from where they passed the qualifying examination. In case where two or more candidates had secured equal marks in the qualifying examination, their inter-se merit for admission was to be decided as per the following criteria in order of preference :-

"(a) Candidate obtaining higher aggregate marks in the qualifying examination in 4 subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English;

(b) Candidate obtaining higher marks in Biology in the qualifying examination;

(c) The candidate older in age."

The only ground on which the admissions granted to respondents No. 3 and 4 have been challenged is that they secured less marks than the petitioner in the complusory subjects of 10+2 examination. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 has been given admission because she is the grand daughter of Shri Jagir Singh Bhullar who is Parliamentary Secretary (Industries) attached to the Chief Minister, Punjab and also an M.L.A. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Institute it is denied that the petitioner had secured more marks than respondent No. 3. It is averred that both the petitioner and this respondent had secured 263 marks each in the 4 complusory subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English in the 10+2 examination conducted by the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali in March, 2000 but the marks secured by respondent No. 3 in the subject of Biology were higher than the marks secured by the petitioner in this subject and, therefore, respondent No. 3 was given admission to the BDS course in preference to the petitioner. So far as the admission of respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is admitted that his marks were less than those of the petitioner but the latter failed to deposit the fee within the prescribed time and, therefore, admission was granted to respondent No. 4. It is pleaded that the petitioner and other candidates higher in merit than respondent No. 4 were required to deposit their fee by 14.8.2000 but they failed to do so. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 4 who was last on the waiting list wanted to deposit his fee on 14.8.2000 but he was asked to wait till 5.00 P.M. According to respondent No. 2, no candidate reported till 5.00 P.M. and respondent No. 4 was asked to report on the next working day i.e. 16.8.2000 (15m August being a national holiday). Even on 16.8.2000 respondent No. 4 was asked to wait till 2.00 P.M. and it was then that the fee was accepted from him and admission granted. Respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the Institute wherein it is provided that candidates selected for admission must deposit the fee and original certificates within two days, failing which the seat would be allotted to the next candidate on merit in the waiting list.

We have heard counsel for the parties and with their help gone through their pleadings. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have secured equal marks in the four compulsory subjects in 10+2 examination but the marks of respondent No. 3 in the subject of Biology are more than those of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the admission granted to respondent No. 3, as according to the prospectus issued by the University where two or more candidates had secured equal marks in the four compulsory subjects, their inter-se merit was to be decided on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the subject of Biology in the qualifying examination. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 had 68 marks out of 100 in the subject of Biology in her qualifying examination whereas the petitioner had obtained only 59 marks. Merely because respondent No. 3 happens to be the grand daughter of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary in Punjab will not disentitle her to get admission if on the basis of her merit she was entitled to the same. Thus, the fact that she (respondent No. 3) is the grand daughter of Shri Jagir Singh Bhullar is of no consequence.

As regads the admission granted to responded No. 4, it is common case of the parties that the petitioner has more marks than this respondent. Petitioner was selected for admission to the MBBS course as well and on her own showing she could not be admitted to that course because she could not arrange 75,000 U.S Dollars which was the fee for mat course. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to deposit her fee within two days of her selection and, therefore, the seat was offered to the next candidate in the waiting list and finally respondent No. 4 was admitted as he deposited the fee within the stipulated period. The petitioner has seriously contested the stand of the respondents and it is her case that the merit list was never put up on the notice board and that at the time of counselling she was verbally informed that all the nine seats meant for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates had been filled. We directed the learned counsel for the Institute to produce the record before us and we have perused the file. There were in all 51 candidates who applied for the nine seats that were available for the NRI/NRI sponsored candidates for the BDS course. Out of these candidates only 36 appeared for interview/counselling on 11.8.2000. The Admission Committee admitted five NRI students who deposited their fee within the prescribed time. It also selected four NRI sponsored candidates on the same day and those candidates were required to deposit their fee within two days. Only two of those candidates deposited the fee. The waiting list of nine candidates had also prepared in which name of the petitioner appears at No. 3 whereas respondent No. 3 is at No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is the last candidate on the waiting list. According to the respondents, this list was put up on the notice board and the candidates were required to deposit their fee within two days. Respondent No. 3 who is at No. 2 on the waiting list deposited her fee and thereafter no other candidate deposited the fee. Respondent No. 4, however, deposited the same on 16.8.2000 after being made to wait till that time. A copy of this list shows that it was marked to be put up on the notice board as well. According to the petitioner, it was not put up on the notice board whereas the Principal of the Institute has filed a reply specifically stating therein that the list was put up on the notice board and an opportunity given to all those including the petitioner in the waiting list to deposit their fee and it was only on their failure to deposit the fee within the stipulated period that the admission was granted to respondent No. 4. Since there is a serious dispute between the parties in this regard and there is nothing on the record except the ipse dixit of the petitioner that the waiting list was not put up on the notice board, we are unable to hold that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to deposit her fee. The copy of the waiting list produced before us shows that if had been marked for being put up on the notice board and there is no reason to believe that it was not so done. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter and uphold the action of the Institute in granting admission to respondent No. 4 as well.

In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.