Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Haryana & Others on 27 May, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013
Date of Decision: 27.5.2013
Dr. Gurpreet Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana & others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged midway change in the criteria for admission, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5).
Facts which are hardly in dispute and necessary for disposal of the case, are that process for admission in the M.D./M.S/P.G. Diploma Courses started with the information bulletin for "NEET-PG' issued in September, 2012 vide Annexure P-1. The result was declared on 17.5.2013 vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner claims himself to be eligible for admission against the seats reserved Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 2 for HCMS in-service doctors. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that vide impugned communication dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5), the candidates who were earlier not eligible, have also been made eligible by changing the criteria, which would be adversely affecting the merit. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned communication dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) by allowing the present writ petition. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (1) SCC 177 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (4) SCC 54.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is, on the face of it, misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny this material fact that despite the alleged change in the criteria having been made, the petitioner took the chance without raising any objection to the alleged changed criteria, at the relevant point of time. Once it is so, petitioner cannot be permitted to take a somersault at this stage, trying to find fault with the changed criteria.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 3 Jammu & Kashmir, 1995 (2) S.C.T. 880 and the relevant observations made in para 9 of the judgment, read as under:-
"Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of (-sic-) marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties.
The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 4 interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
Further, it is only the apprehension of the petitioner that the changed criteria may adversely affect the future prospects of the candidates like the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his argument, in this regard as well. The apprehension seems to be misplaced. No direction can be issued only on the basis of apprehension, raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The impugned communication came to be issued as far back as on 11.3.2013, vide Annexure P-5. There is no explanation, even worth the name, as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court earlier. It prima facie seems that the petitioner had been intending to take chance and if gets successful, it would be fine, otherwise he will take a somersault by challenging the same criteria at a later point of time. It is not permissible in law. Once the Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 5 petitioner was fully aware about the issuance of the impugned communication dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) and if he felt aggrieved against it, he was expected to challenge the same immediately, but the petitioner failed to do so, without any reason, much less cogent reasons thereof.
It is pertinent to note here that counselling is scheduled to be held today itself, i.e. 27.5.2013. The pivotal issue that falls for consideration of this Court is, as to whether in the given fact situation of the case, it would be appropriate to entertain the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, when the counselling is being held today itself. The answer is and has to be an emphatic no. The reason is simple that hundreds of the eligible candidates had been preparing for the examination burning midnight oil. To disturb the entire admission process at this crucial time would be more harmful than doing any good. Petitioner may or may not be benefited from the result of the counselling which is yet to be declared, however, interference by this Court at this stage, would be causing serious prejudice to large number of doctors, who had been aspiring for admission to the postgraduate courses.
So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is not doubt about the law laid down therein. However, it has been found that the judgments are of no help to the petitioner, having been rendered in different set of facts and circumstances.
In the cited judgment in Parmender Kumar's case (supra), the impugned instructions were issued on 31.3.2011, which came to Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 6 be challenged before this Court. Thereafter, this Court issued interim order dated 6.4.2011 whereas in the present case, the petitioner has been found sleeping over his right, if any. He did not come to this Court at the appropriate time. The clock cannot be put back. The last date for admission in the P.G. Courses, as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is 31st May.
In view of the above, if any direction is issued at this point of time, this Court would be transgressing its jurisdiction and any such direction shall run counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixing the last date as 31st May. The petitioner has failed to give even a prima facie explanation as to why he could not come to this Court earlier, to lay challenge to the impugned communication. Similarly, the second judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) is also not applicable in the instant case, for the reason that it was pertaining to a selection matter based on different criteria. Thus, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable on facts.
Further, it is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533.
In the fact situation of this nature, as obtaining in the present case, principles of equity, in the opinion of this Court, have Civil Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2013 7 no role to play. Any sympathy, in such a situation, will be misplaced. In such a fact situation, sentiments are bound to play a dangerous role. Had the petitioner come to this Court promptly and at the appropriate time, he might have been entitled for interference at the hands of this Court. However, since the petitioner has been found to be negligent and wasted his valuable time while not approaching this Court immediately after issuance of the impugned communication, the petitioner is no more entitled for any kind of relief, at this belated stage.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case of interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the present writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 27.5.2013 AK Sharma