Arvind
Kumar Kankane Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [2001] Insc 363 (3 August 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Doraiswamy Raju Rajendra Babu, J. :
[With
C.A.No.4752/2000 and SLP(C) No.5151/2000]
C.A.Nos.2649-2651/2000
In relation to admission to post-graduate medical courses, Rules were framed
under the Government order issued on March 30, 1994; it was provided therein
that the allotment of subject [speciality] and college of study made on the
basis of option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be permitted
to change the subject or the college. A candidate who does not exercise his
option at the time of counselling will be kept in the waiting list and if at
any subsequent stage a seat falls vacant the same shall be allotted on the
basis of the option exercised by those who are in the waiting list. Writ
petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of these Rules.
A
learned Single Judge of the High Court interpreting the rules directed that
when after the first counselling any subsequent counselling is decided to be
held for allocation of remaining seats including those which have fallen vacant
subsequent to the first counselling, the same shall be notified to the public
and the first date of each subsequent counselling will be reserved for the
candidates who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who wish to
change their seats and out of the candidates, who were allotted seats at the
first counselling, who turn up for subsequent counselling on the first date
which is served for such students, distribution of seats which have fallen
vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be done according to
merit. The change of seat to these students who have been allotted seats during
the first and earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of seats
which have fallen vacant after the first counselling and not of the left over
seats.
Aggrieved
by these directions, an appeal was preferred by the Director General of Medical
Education and Training. The Division Bench, after considering the scheme of
admission and conditions imposed therein and the decisions of the Full Bench of
Delhi High Court in Dr.Veena Gupta vs. University of Delhi AIR 1994 Delhi 108
(FB) and of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jain vs. The Controller
of Examinations, 1998 (3) E.S.C.Cases 2016, held that any seat which is
available and which has not been included in any of the three counselling by
mistake should be filled in, in order of merit amongst the wait listed
candidates. Normally, when a seat is available, the same should be included in
the initial counselling. If by mistake a seat is not included in the initial counselling
then the effect is that nobody opts for the same. If now the said seat is
sought to be offered to all the candidates for counselling, the result would be
that all the candidates who took part in the first counselling should be given
a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain
reaction and ultimately there will be one seat more, which would become
available for the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will start
leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling
for all candidates would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which
had already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair,
there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the
said seat to the wait listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the
academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a period of
three years and if the counselling goes on continuously for a long period then
it may not be possible to fulfill that condition and thereby upset the course
of study itself. On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the order made by
the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against this order and
connected matters that the present appeals are filed by special leave.
We
have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High Court and
before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division
Bench and Delhi High Court in Dr.Veena Guptas case [supra] and the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jains case [supra] is in accordance with the
reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is
exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and
thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling
and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as
apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic
course within the stipulated period.
The
grievance made is that if a choice subject like surgery and medicine is given
up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate who is
lower in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous circumstance
dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a
seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and
thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the
merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of
the rule.
In
that view of the matter, we find absolutely no merit in the appeals and the
same stand dismissed. No costs.
C.A.No.4752/2000
& SLP(C) No.5151/2000] For the reasons given in C.A.Nos.2649-2651/2000,
this appeal and SLP also are dismissed. No costs.
J.
[ S.
RAJENDRA BABU ] ...J.
Back
Pages: 1 2
