Upasana vs Punjab University and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Petitioner Upasana passed her matriculation examination in the year 1997. The respondents had issued a Prospectus & Application Form for Common Entrance Test for admission to various courses including M.B.B.S. course. The petitioner had applied for the same. After completing all necessary formalities, the respondent authorities allowed her to take the examination which was held on 22nd and 23rd of May, 1999. lt is alleged that, as per the schedule, the respondent authorities declared the result on 18-6-1999. She came to know of the clearance of the examination through newspaper but was not able to fill the form for admission because result card was not issued to her. The petitioner asserts that she has approached the respondent authorities for supply of the result card. For submission of admission form, it is necessary to submit the result card. The same was not supplied to the petitioner even when she approached the various respondent authorities. The result card was received by the petitioner on the evening of 24-6-1999. The postal stamps on the envelops containing the result card was neither defaced nor there existed any stamp of receiving or delivering post office. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities deliberately and intentionally had withheld the result card to mar the career of the petitioner. It had been put in the mail box of the petitioner''s house in the evening of 24-6-1999. On receiving the result card, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 25-6-1999 but they were not willing to accept the application of the petitioner for admission. No sympathy was shown to the petitioner.

She is a Scheduled Castes category candidate. She states that a fraud had been played and in her category she is likely to be placed at serial No. 2. Claiming that the action of the respondent authorities was Illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner has been deprived of her right to take counselling and ultimately admission to M.B.B.S. course, the present writ petition had been filed.

The petition as such had been contested. In the reply filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 6, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has no right to invoke the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution because she did not apply for admission to M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College on the prescribed application form up to 24-6-1999. It was asserted that, as per Brochure for the year 1999, the last date for receipt of application form along with relevant documents was 24-6-1999 up to 1.00 p.m. During the period of declaration of result and day before last date of receipt of applications i.e. 23-6-1999 some of the applicants had reported that they had not received their result cards. The Director Principal, being the competent authority, allowed the acceptance of admission forms provisionally in case of those candidates. The petitioner did not do so and, therefore, is debarred from claiming any grievance.

In the reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 through Professor Paramjit Singh, Registrar of Punjab University, the facts stated were that Entrance Test for admission to various courses including M.B.B.S. Course was held on 22nd and 23rd of May, 1999. the result was declared on 18-6-1999. The result cards were despatched on 21-6-1999 through ordinary course. As a matter of practice, no record of the same is maintained in the University. It was asserted further that it was the duty of the rec eiving and delivering post office to affix their seal.

On these facts it has been urged that the petitioner did not receive the result card till the evening of 24-6-1999 and, therefore, she could not be blamed for not submitting the necessary application form for admission on 24-6-1999 by 1-00 p.m. She highlighted the fact in the case of certain other candidates who also did not receive the result card, the respondent authorities had relaxed the provision and permitted them to file the application forms without the result card.

As against this, on behalf of the respondents, it was vehemently urged that, as per the Brochure, 24-6-1999 was the last date for receipt of the application form at Government Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The petitioner did not submit the necessary application form by 1.00 p.m. on 24-6-1999 and, therefore, she has lost the right to seek admission.

To appreciate the said controversy, some of the relevant facts which are not in controversy can conveniently be listed. As per Brochure, for admission to M.B.B.S. course in Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh, the eligibility criteria has been mentioned as under :--

Every candidate seeking admission should have attained the age of 17 years on or before 31 December, 1999.

Only Indian citizens are eligible for admission.

Every candidate must have appeared in the Common Entrance Test, 1999, conducted by the Punjab University, Chandigarh.

Applicants with less than 50% marks in the CET 1999, shall not be eligible for admission to this College. However, for students belonging to reserved category (SC), the minimum marks required for admission shall be 40% (in lieu of 50% for general category) as per rules/regulations of the Medical Council of India.

Candidates applying under Scheduled Caste category are required to submit the certificate regarding their category in the prescribed form (Appendix-I), which must be signed only by officers mentioned in the form. Signatures of any other officer will not be accepted and such applications would be rejected.

Candidates must have been declared physically and mentally fit by the Medical Board constituted by the Director Principal prior to their admission to the Government Medical College, Chandigarh.

It has further been provided that after selection, the original certificates of the candidates have to be retained by the College and each application should be accompanied by attested photostat copies of the relevant documents, failing which the application will be treated to have been rejected. It includes CET 1999 Result Certificate issued by the Punjab University, Chandigarh. The relevant portion of the Brochure reads as under :--

"7. After selection, the original certificate of the candidates shall be retained by the college.

Each application must be accompanied by attested photostat copies of the following documents, failing which the application will be treated incomplete and rejected :

Acknowledgment card self-addressed and bearing postage stamp of Rs. 2.00.

CET 1999 Result Certificate issued by Punjab University, Chandigarh, showing marks obtained.

Certificates of having passed +1 and +2 examinations, along with detailed marks sheets from school/colleges located in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and recognised by the Chandigarh Administration.

Matriculation or equivalent certificate showing date of birth."

Schedule/Admission Calendar of M. B. B. S. Course had also been mentioned in the Brochure which reads as under :--

Written Common Entrance Test to be conducted by the Punjab University, Chandigarh

Saturday, 22 May, 1999

Declaration/Publication of result of Common Entrance Test by Punjab University, Chandigarh.

Friday. 18 June, 1999 (tentative)

Last date for receipt of applications at Govt. Medical College, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.

Thursday, 24 June, 1999 (upto 1.00 P.M.)

Date of Interview and Medical Fitness Exam. at Govt. Medical College Hospital. Sector 32-B, Chandigarh.

29 June, 1999 (at 8.00 A.M.)

It is abundantly clear that the petitioner was eligible to take the test. It is the duty of the respondent Punjab University to send the result card of the CET examination. The last date for submission of application form was 24-6-1999 up to 1.00 p.m. Admittedly, the petitioner- failed to submit the application form with the result card on that date.

Reliance on behalf of the respondents was placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjab University, Patiala and others, It was held that an institution has necessarily to fix a cut off date for admissions as non-fixation thereof would result in non-finalization of admissions for an indefinite period. Cut off date has to be fixed keeping in view the tentative date when the classes have to start. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti Sharmav. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra 1998 (1) RSJ 133 was concerned with the same situation and held that if a candidate fails to present himself before a competent authority by the specific date, he loses his right to be considered for admission. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment, this Court held as under :--

"10. In the case in hand the candidates were given advance notice requiring them to appear on the appointed dates for the purpose of admission. Therefore, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who failed to present themselves before the competent authority between 15-7-1997 and 24-7-1997 lost their right to be considered for admission and it was the bounden duty of the concerned authority to have offered admissions in the order of merit to the candidates who had made themselves available on the last date of admission. It has not been explained by the official respondents as to why the Chairman of the Department of Zoology did not admit four candidates against the open category seats from among those who had presented themselves on 24-7-1997. Therefore, we find substance in the argument of Shri Gurdev Singh that the authorities of the respondent-University acted in an arbitrary manner resulting in denial of admission to the petitioner as per the rules framed by the University.

Shri Heman Aggarwal defended the admission of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of letters dated 22-8-1997 and 9-9-1997 issued under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, He also relied on Section 31(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986 to support his submission that the Vice-Chancellor can exercise emergency powers for the purpose of efficient functioning of the University. Learned counsel submitted that the Vice-Chancellor wrote the two above mentioned letters because of a number of seats remained vacant after expiry of the last date fixed in the Information Handbook. ..........."

On the strength of these precedents it was contended that the respondents could not make an exception in case of the petitioner who has failed to submit the necessary application form by 1.00 p.m. on 24-6-1999.

There can be no controversy in this regard. But can the authorities create a situation and thereafter deny the right of admission to a candidate? The answer would be in the negative. The reasons are not far to fetch. It transpires in the reply of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that the result card was only despatched on 21-6-1999. They do not even maintain a record of the postal receipts etc. It is anybody''s quess as to if the result card was delivered on 21-6-1999 or thereafter. Even if for the sake of argument, the said contention is accepted, still it is, not far to fetch it that the petitioner could riot have received the result card by 24-6-1999 in time. It is for the authorities to make sure that the result cards are despatched well in advance. That care was not taken. The contention of the petitioner otherwise also cannot be ignored. It is to the effect that till the evening of 24-6-1999 she had not received the result card. It gets support from what is admitted by the respondents. It is admitted that there were many students who had not received the result cards by 23-6-1999. They were permitted to submit their application forms provisionally. Therefore, the Court believes the petitioner when she contends that she did not receive the result card by the evening of 24-6-1999.

In these circumstances, she was helpless. It is in the Brochure that without the result card the application form, if filed, would be rejected. She necessarily had to wait like a disciplined person.

On the contrary to state, under these circumstances, that the petitioner has lost her right forever would be totally arbitrary. In the case of others who had not received the result card, the authorities accepted their application forms provisionally. If the rules were so strict, they would not have been relaxed. In fact that applications without result cards were to be rejected, but in their cases the application forms were accepted provisionally. One fails to understand as to why the petitioner was to be treated differently and relaxation would not be possible in her case, particularly when the respondents themselves had despatched the result card so late.

Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ritu Karwa v. Punjab University 1999 1 JSC 521. In the cited case, Ritu was prevented from attending interview for admission as death occurred in the family. Two candidates were granted admission though they did not appear for interview on stipulated date. It was held that if University itself had chosen to relax a condition in respect of one candidate, it should do so in case of other candidates.

Identical is the position herein. As noted above, the petitioner did not receive the result card in time. When the petitioner received the result card, by that time the last date for submission of application form hadj expired. The respondent authorities hadj despatched the result card late. In certain other cases where the result card had not been received in time, the respondents accepted their application forms without the result card. Even if that had been done before the closing date i.e. 24-6-1999, it will have little impact. The conclusions are obvious that the petitioner cannot be discriminated and in any case, in the peculiar facts, it is the respondent authorities who have to share the blame. The delay occurred because of the respondent authorities.

For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be considered for admission to M. B. B. S. course in Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh, as per marks secured by her. If no seat is available, an additional seat must be created to adjust the petitioner.