AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—The allegations in both the writ petitions are the same, though the reliefs prayed for are different. The Writ Petitions are by the same peetitioner.
In W.P.19336 of 1996, Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to admit the Petitioner in third Respondent College in M.B.B.S Course for the Academic Year 1996-97 or any other subsequent year under ''Payment Seat'' category.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition W.P.19336 of 1996, Petitioner has stated that he hails from a remote village in Rajaji District and belongs to Backward Community. After completing his 12th Standard (+ 2 Course) from Government Higher Secondary School, Rasipuram, Petitioner took the Tamil Nadu Professional Course Entrance Examination for Medical Course conducted by Anna University. He secured an aggregate of 286-00, and the cut-off mark for Backward Class quota was also the same. Petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent sent an intimation to him to attend the counselling for admission to B.D.S. Course for the year 1996-97, to be held on 19-7-1996 at Kilpauk Medical College, Madras. He was selected under ''free seat'' category and was given admission in J.K.K. Nataraja Dental College at Kumarapalayam, Salem District. Petitioner paid tuition fees and joined the B.D.S. Course on 26-7-1996. Even though he was admitted in B.D.S. Course, he was very much interested and anxious to join M.B.B.S. Course. Petitioner felt happy when he received an intimation letter from 1st Respondent directing the Petitioner to attend the counselling for Provisional Selection/Wait List for M.B.B.S. payment Seat category for 1996-97 Session on 10-9-1996. He attended the counselling on that day wherein he was informed that there were only few seats in Vinayaka Medical College in Salem, and his name was placed in the Wait List No. 30. He was informed that if any vacancy arises, he would be informed. Petitioner received intimation on 11-10-96 from the Secretary, Selection Committee, stating that he has been selected for M.B.B.S. Course under ''Payment Seat'' category for 1996-97 session. He was asked to go over to the office of the Selection Committee with a demand draft for Rs. 75,000/- drawn in favour of the Dean, Vinayaka Mission Kirupananda Variyar Medical College, Salem, on 14-10-1996. On the appointed day, Petitioner went to the 2nd Respondent and produced the Draft for Rs. 75,000/-. Petitioner''s father also went with him. On the basis of the intimation letter Petitioner obtained a Transfer Certificate from the Dental College where he was studying before. With all his testimonials, Petitioner, along with his father, approached the 3rd Respondent-College on 16-10-1996. On that day, he was asked to appear before the concerned Authorities after a couple of days. Therefore, Petitioner and his father again went to the 3rd Respondent-College on 18-10-1996. But none of the higher Authorities were available. They were asked to come again on 22-10-1996. On that day also, Petitioner was not given admission, and they were asked to come again on 1-11-1996. For one reason or other, third Respondent-College was not showing interest in admitting the Petitioner, though he had been directed to join that College. In the meanwhile, Petitioner and his father came to know that during the relevant time ten other students who were placed in the same position like the Petitioner were also asked to return back and they got suspicious. They met the Collector of Salem and made a representation. The Collector expressed his inability since it related to admission by a Selection Committee, and the third Respondent-College, being a private institution, he could not help them. But he assured that he will use his good offices, and asked the students to approach the College as directed on 1-11-1996. It is said that all the students decided to send representations to the Selection Committee. Petitioner also sent one such representation on 23-10-1996, enclosing a copy of the representation given by the students to the Collector. According to the Petitioner, one Jamuna who had also given representation to the Collector, was given admission on 22-10-1996. It is said that the students were finally permitted to meet the Registrar of third Respondent-College on 1-11-1996. But they were informed that as per Supreme Court orders, they cannot make admission after 16-10-1996. In the meanwhile, Petitioner further came to know that some other students were also admitted upto 31-10-1996. But the Petitioner alone was denied admission. It is under the above circumstances, Petitioner filed W.P. 10336 of 1996 for the aforesaid reliefs.
At the time when the above Writ Petition came for admission on 2-1-1997, C. Shivappa, J. directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice for Respondents 1 and 2. Notice was ordered in respect of 3rd Respondent. Private notice was also permitted.
Since the Petitioner could not get admission during the academic year 1996-97, he filed W.P.11073 of 1997 where the relief sought for is, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 1 and 2 to allot one M.B.B.S. seat to the Petitioner in any one of the private Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu under "Payment Seat Category" for the year 1997-98 or any other subsequent year and thus render justice.
Since the averments raised in both the writ petitions are the same, averments made in W.P. 11073 of 1997 are not repeated, except stating that the Petitioner seeks admission in the year 1997-98.
After the third Respondent entered appearance both the writ petitions were heard for final disposal. I feel that the Petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this stage.
Academic Year 1996-97 has already expired and, therefore, WJU0336 of 1996 has become infructuous. Apart from this, learned Counsel for third Respondent-College also submitted that it never received any intimation from the Selection Committee that the Petitioner has been admitted to the College for that year. It is the definite case of third Respondent that the Petitioner never met the College Authorities on any of the dates mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.10336 of 1996. It is further contended by third Respondent that whenever any intimation is given by the Selection Committee, those students have been admitted and the Selection Committee has also been informed accordingly. It is further said that as on 16-6-1996, list of students who had already been admitted in the College, including admission in the category of ''free seats'' had already been sent to the Selection Committee. If in case the Petitioner was also one such candidate included, his name would have been made mention of. There is no necessity for the Institution to single out the Petitioner for denying admission when other students referred to in the writ petition were admitted.
In this case, we find that there is only Oath against Oath. So long as there is no sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was denied admission by the third Respondent-College, I do not think that this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 for giving admission for the year 1996-97.
The second writ petition is seeking admission for the year 1997-98. The said relief is sought on the basis of the decision reported in V. Shanthanalakshmi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, , wherein such a relief has been granted by Shivaraj Patil, J. In that case, the Petitioner wanted admission for the year 1994-95. On merits, it was found by learned Judge that the Petitioner was admitted improperly, but, by the time the writ petition came to be disposed, it was found that there was no seat available to be Filled up. Learned Judge said that ''having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief has to be moulded suitably. Petitioner being a deserted woman, after her husband deserted her, has joined the Plus 1 Course, completed the course, appeared in the Entrance Examination held for M.B.B.S, course, secured 241-25 out of 300 marks. In this situation one should appreciate the persuasion and urge of the Petitioner to study rather than punish her, by denying admission to the Medical course; if seats are not available for the academic year 1994-95, the Respondents have to allot one seat in the M.B.B.S. course during the academic year 1995-96 in any one of the colleges, if possible, having regard to the fact that the Petitioner is a deserted woman, in a college convenient to her.'' In this case, the argument was that for no fault on the part of the Petitioner, he had been denied admission. Even the B.D.S. Course which he was studying, could not be continued since the Selection Committee assured admission and gave him a seat in third Respondent-College. Even though the relief sought for in the writ petition was admission during the Academic Year 1996-97, taking into consideration the circumstances, the relief could be moulded and, therefore, Petitioner is entitled to admission during 1997-98.
I do not think any reliance could be placed on the decision cited by learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner for the reason that it was reversed in Appeal as could be seen from the judgment reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. N. Santhanalakshmi, . There, the Division Bench said that it is not permissible for the Court to give any such direction without taking into consideration the realities. An anticipatory admission is not expected from a Court of law. In the concluding portion of the judgment, it was held thus:
...The jurisdiction exercised by us is that of the first and regular Appellate Court and, therefore, there is no scope for allowing the direction issued by the learned single Judge directing the giving of one seat in the next academic year being allowed to stand without interference on any consideration of mere sympathies or abstract, and technical concepts of justice ignoring real and substantial justice. Moreover, it will not be keeping within the bounds of law and it is also not permissible to issue such a direction ignoring the fact as to what would be the rules of admission for the academic year 1995-96. A direction to admit to a course can be issued only when the Petitioner is not only qualified but is also eligible as per the rules governing the admission and such eligibility has been ignored and the admission is denied unjustly and illegally.
In this case, the Petitioner is not an applicant for the year 1997-98 and, therefore, the question can never be considered for Petitioner being admitted in that year. If allowed, that would amount to the Court holding that a non-applicant is entitled to get admission in future. No Court has ever said that merely because a candidate is not admitted for a particular year, on sympathy he must be given admission for a subsequent year. Because, that will amount to denying the right of other qualified candidates, and it will be a social case so far as the Petitioner is concerned. The Court cannot act on sympathy. It is governed by the Rules and Regulations of Admission. That apart, after the single window system of admission has come into vogue, the Selection Committee is bound to consider only the Prospectus to which both the Candidate and the Selection Committee are bound. Petitioner cannot claim any exemption from the Rules of admission, nor is the Selection Committee bound to consider the case when the Petitioner is not an applicant. If the Petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of third Respondent in denying admission for the year 1996-97, the remedy is not by way of filing writ petition of this nature, but to claim compensation. That remedy of the Petitioner is left open. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.