Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Eaan Shaikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
1
W.P. No.24411 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 4th MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24411 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMAD EAAN SHAIKH S/O SHAIKH EJAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT CHANDRASHEKHAR AZAD MARG,
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MANISH YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE
1. OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION IV FLOOR, SATPURA BHAWAN,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION IV
2.
FLOOR SATPURA BHAWAN DIST. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL
3. EDUCATION, SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER,
4.
MEDICAL EDUCATION DIST. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI ANIKET NAIK , DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
(SHRI PIYUSH PARASHAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 06.12.2023
2
W.P. No.24411 of 2023
Pronounced on : 04.03.2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order coming on for
pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A. DHARMADHIKARI
pronounced the following
ORDER
Matter is heard finally with the consent of parties. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, and directions or order may kindly be given to the respondents to not apply the notification dated 18.08.2023 in the Academic Session 2023-34.
(b) It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the mop up round allotment list dated 15.09.2023 and direct the respondent to conduct fresh mop-up roudn without the applicability of the amendment notification dated 18.08.2023 in the interest of justice.
(c) Any other writ direction or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student who had passed 12th Standard in the year 2021 with 86% marks. The petitioner started preparation for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test(referred to as "NEET" hereinafter). The petitioner appeared in the NEET 2023 and 3 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 the result of the same was declared on 13.06.2023 wherein petitioner has obtained 430 marks out of 750 marks and his All India Rank was 163660. State Government introduced Mukhya Mantri Medhavi Vidhyarti Yojna in the year 2017 which provided for payment of fees of students who are covered under the scheme for eligible courses. Initially, one of the condition for eligibility was that the income of the father of candidate should be less than 6 lakhs per annum. The petitioner appeared in the first round of counseling and the list was published on 07.08.2023 where he was placed at S.No. 3714 and no college was allotted to him.
3. The second allotment list was published on 28.08.2023 whereunder the name of the petitioner was at S.No. 2326. Petitioner was not allotted a seat for the MBBS course as the counseling was closed at 454 marks. The petitioner was hopeful of getting admitted in a college in the last mop-up round. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued notification dated 18.08.2023 by amending the condition regarding eligibility criteria whereby limit of income of father of candidate has been raised from 6 lakhs p.a. to 8 lakhs p.a. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the aforesaid notification, new registrations have been permitted in the last mop-up round and, therefore, the petitioner's merit was affected and he was not allotted any college since the counseling was closed at 454 marks. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents have issued the notification of amending the condition regarding per annum income of father of candidate in between the counselling and it was mentioned in the notification that the same will be applicable from the Session 2023-24. Due to aforesaid amendment, petitioner has lost the chance to get admission for pursuing MBBS course. He further submitted 4 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 that he had scored 450 marks in the NEET exam and the second round of counseling was closed at 454 marks. Due to amendment in the notification, more candidates have participated in the last mop-up round and merely because of 04 marks he could not get admission any college. The amended notification issued in between the counseling ought to have implemented from the next session rather than implementing the same in the current academic session. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate writ, direction, order may be given to the respondents not to apply the amended notification dated 18.08.2023 for the Academic Session 2023-24.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that in any case, the merit of the petitioner is not affected by introduction of notification dated 18.08.2023 by the Directorate of Technical Education which was implemented on 10.09.2023 whereas prior to the said date, fresh registration of new eligible candidates for Mop-up round had already been closed on 07.09.2023 and, therefore, there is no fresh registration in furtherance to the notification dated 18.08.2023 as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner could not have been allotted seat looking to the fact that 37 candidates belonging to OBC category including sub-categories of OBC and as many as 33 candidates were over and above the petitioner in the category of OBC-open in the second round of allotment. The petitioner has also not been allotted a seat in the mop-up round being placed below in merit. Introduction of amendment dated 18.08.2023 has nothing to do or is affecting the merit of the petitioner. Increase in number of candidates is incidently on account of fresh registration in mop-up round in adherence to Rule 6 of M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam Rules 2018.
5 W.P. No.24411 of 20236. In view of the aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner are absolutely misconceived and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this court deems it fit to elaborate upon the scope, competence and power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, especially with regard to policy decision taken by the Government.
9. The policy decision cannot be interfered with, unless the same is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and is an abuse of process of law. Policy decision can be faulted on the ground of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or irrationality as the same renders it to be unconstitutional. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Apex Court that executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for of the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy is against other Constitutional provisions or statutory provision, the same cannot be interfered by court, while exercising power of judicial review. Most importantly, it has been repeatedly held that neither it is within the domain of court nor within the scope of judicial review to embark upon enquiry to find out whether a particular policy is better or a better policy could have been evolved. Unless it is shown to court that illegality has been committed in the policy or same is contrary to law or is malafide, a decision bringing about change in policy, cannot per se be interfered by the court. Reliance in this regard is placed upon following judgments:
6 W.P. No.24411 of 202310. In Asif Hameed v. State of J & K , 1989 reported in Supp. (2) SCC 364, the Hon'ble Apex Court has as under:
"19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self- imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a co-ordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers " .
11. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"57. Judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy. The Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" by its own views. When the legislature acts within the sphere of its authority and delegates power to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness. In all such cases, judicial inquiry is confined to the question whether the findings of fact are 7 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land. As rated by Jagannatha Shetty, J. in M/s. Gupta Sugar Works, (supra):
.....the court does not act like a chartered accountant nor acts like an income tax officer. The court is not concerned with any individual case or any particular problem.
The court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations provided by the statute. And whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination."
12. This Court further finds support in its view by the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Shikhar & Anrs. Vs. National Board of Examination [W.P.208/2022] wherein the Apex Court is seized with similar controversy. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 are reproduced below for reference :
9. While we understand that the present cut-off date for the completion of the internship would put certain students at a disadvantage, we are conscious that it is the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities to formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission. In Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik Sarangi, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that courts should be circumspect in exercising their powers of judicial review in matters concerning academic policies, including admission criteria. In that case, this Court refused to interfere with the eligibility criteria for appearing in JEE (Advanced) 2021 which prevented a candidate who had 8 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 secured a seat in one of the IITs from competing in a subsequent examination. This Court relied on All India Council for ,Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan4 where it was observed that judicial interference motivated by concerns of mitigating the hardship faced by students may result in unintended consequences adversely affecting the education system. This Court held thus: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 826 4 (2009) 11 SCC 726 "19. The reasoning of the High Court of Criterion 5 not permitting IIT students to participate in IIT (Advanced) for the second time being arbitrary, in the opinion of this Court is not supportable. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that in matters such as devising admissions criteria or other issues engaging academic institutions, the courts' scrutiny in judicial review has to be careful and circumspect. Unless shown to be plainly arbitrary or discriminatory, the court would defer to the wisdom of administrators in academic institutions who might devise policies in regard to curricular admission process, career progression of their employees, matters of discipline or other general administrative issues concerning the institution or university
5. It was held by this court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan 6 "16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of 9 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education."
. Given this general reluctance of courts to substitute the views of academic and expert bodies, the approach of the High Court in proceeding straightaway to characterize the rationale given by the IIT in fashioning the Criteria No. 5 cannot be supported." (emphasis supplied)
10. In Rachna v. Union of India & Ors.5 a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was instituted before this Court with a prayer to grant one additional attempt to clear the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2020 to petitioners who were otherwise not eligible to participate in subsequent examinations due to their exhausting available attempts or because of crossing the age bar. The petitioners pleaded that on account of the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, they had faced difficulties in preparing for the examination. The petitioners also argued that the government had previously granted such a relaxation in 2015. This Court dismissed the petition and held that policy decisions are taken by the executive considering the 5 (2021) 5 SCC 638 prevailing circumstances. The Court further observed that the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court to direct the government to come out with a specific policy granting relaxation to certain candidates as a matter of right. The following observations 10 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 of this Court are relevant:
"45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the courts to legislate. The courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for the reason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the participant in the Civil Services Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right."
13. In the case in hand, admittedly amendment has been made in the notification, but it is a policy decision and there is no malafide or unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the amended notification rendering the same to be unconstitutional. The Court is called upon to consider the 11 W.P. No.24411 of 2023 validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if the petitioner has not been allotted seat in any college for the reason that the condition of income of the father of candidate is increased from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs and in the given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the petitioner as new registrations in furtherance to the amended notification have been permitted due to which merit of the petitioner is affected in the second mop-up round, no assistance can be claimed by the petitioner in seeking directions to the respondents not to apply the amended notification dated 18.08.2023 from the Academic Session 2023-24, as it is prerogative of the executive and regulatory authorities to formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission etc. which cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as in the light of the aforementioned pronunciations by the Apex Court, this Court has drawn conclusion that policy decision cannot be interfered with, until and unless the same is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and is an abuse of process of law, which is not the case herein.
15. Accordingly, finding no merits in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) (Pranay Verma)
Judge Judge
sh/-
SEHAR
Digitally signed by SEHAR
HASEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, ou=BENCH AT INDORE,
HASEE
2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3d
f7a32860bd3298415a4d1c2d914
36213f2568c8f27da,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
N
serialNumber=E7DBBA955B262C
04B8413251CE7FB6F0B7DBA610
C57F1559C08BF6C6F5DD40D4,
cn=SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2024.03.04 16:52:12 +05'30'