Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr.Rajesh Kumar vs The Chairman,Neet Pg Medi.& Dental & Ors on 15 May, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4500 / 2017
Dr. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Street No. 8, Rampura, Lalgarh, Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman,, NEET PG Medical & Dental
Admission/Counseling Board-2017 Jaipur.
2. The Principal and Controller,, SMS Medical College and Attached
Hospital, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan University of Heatlh Sciences, Through Its Registrar,,
Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 15/05/2017 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner for participating in second or subsequent round of counseling conducted by the NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission/Counseling Board - 2017 for allotment of Govt. Medical College for pursuing PG Medical Course without insisting him to join allotted private college i.e. Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur in first round of counseling and further direction has been sought to allow the petitioner for pursuing his Medical PG Course in Session 2017-18 in subsequent allotted college.
The petitioner appeared in the NEET-PG 2017 and qualified (2 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] to participate in online counseling. Based on the choice filled in by the petitioner, petitioner was allotted Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur. The fees for admission at the said College was indicated at Rs. 48,75,000/- alongwith other expenses and the petitioner was required to deposit bank guarantee/cash security of fee equivalent to remaining two years on or before last day of reporting or at the time of admission.
It is submitted that on account of economical condition of petitioner/his father, as the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the fee required by the College allotted to the petitioner, a relaxation was sought qua condition for admission, wherein, it is specifically provided that the selected candidate is required to report and join at the allotted college as notified in the allotment letter and, if a candidate fails to report at the allotted college within the stipulated time, his candidature for subsequent allotment will be deemed cancelled and he will not be eligible for any further allotment.
It is submitted that on account of unavoidable circumstances, i.e. economical condition of the petitioner/his father, as the petitioner could not report/join at the allotted college i.e. Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur, the condition be relaxed and petitioner be permitted to participate in further counseling to be held by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plea raised by the petitioner and the issue arising from the said aspect is no more res integra as similar writ petitions have been decided by this Court, which have been rejected.
(3 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] Reliance was placed on judgment in Harshita Bothra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 10753/2016, decided on 22.09.2016, wherein, reliance was placed on another judgment in Shiv Karan Roj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 12796/2016, decided at Jaipur Bench on 16.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar nature matter in Suman Khichad v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 5802/2014, decided on 18.08.2014, relief was granted to the petitioner therein and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the judgments in the case of Harshita Bothra (supra) and Suman Khichad (supra).
In the case of Harshita Bothra (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quoting the order passed in the case of Shiv Karan Roj (supra) dismissed the writ petition.
In case of Shiv Karan Roj (supra) the following order was passed at Jaipur Bench:-
"Both the petitions raise a common issue. They are therefore being decided by this order. The SBCWP No.12796/2016 is considered as the lead case for reference to the facts.
The petitioners, one belonging to scheduled caste (SC) and the other to the Other Backward Classes(OBC) appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2 2016 (hereinafter `the (NEET) (UG) 2016') held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for admission into MBBS/ BDS Courses. Result thereof was declared on 16-8- 2016, in which the petitioners were successful. The State of Rajasthan issued NEET UG (Medical/ Dental) guidelines for counselling for the purpose of admission into Colleges within the state on 24-
8-2016. The guidelines were uploaded on the website of (4 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] the UG Admission Board NEET 2016 on 26-8- 2016. The guidelines provide for reporting to the allotted college within the time provided in the letter, allotting the College in the counselling. It was clearly provided that each candidate shall be given time as mentioned in the allotment letter issued on line to join the allotted college and course and there would be no provision for extension of the joining date under any circumstances. The allotment made was to be firm and final with no change of college/ course being permitted. Except that candidates could opt for second round and subsequent round of counselling for change of college/ course after joining in the first instance as per allotment initially made in the first round counselling. It was categorically stated that the candidates who did not join the allotted college following the first round of counselling would be ineligible to be considered for all subsequent rounds of counselling. This 3 prohibition was also recorded in Hindi for the benefit of those, who were not fluent in the English language as under:-
",sls vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus izFke pj.k dh dkamlfyax esa izkIr dkWyst esa izos'k ugha fy;k gS os vfxze pj.k es gksus okyh dkamlfyax ds fy, ik= ugha gksaxsA** The petitioners applied online in their respective categories for NEET UG (Medical/ Dental) Counselling and interalia made a choice for Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Sitapura Industrial Area Jaipur (hereinafter `the College') amongst others in the list of Colleges to which they sought admission in the order of their preference. On the basis of their merit and preference, the petitioners were allotted the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospita, Sitapura Industrial Area Jaipur College on 5-9- 2016 and were required to report to the college by 8-9- 2016 along with the requisite fee Rs.9,75,000/- and all original documents in proof of their eligibility.
The case of the petitioners is that since they belong to the weaker sections of the society they could not make, within three days of the allotment of College, arrangement for Rs.9,75,000/- by 8-9-2016 consequent to which they did not report for admission to the college allotted in the first counselling. Hence the condition in the guidelines/ instruction 4 for counselling in the NEET (UG) 2016 that time, for admissions and by way of extension for deposit of fee and original documents in the College allotted in the first counselling would not be extended is arbitrary. It has been prayed that in the circumstances the condition set out in the Information Booklet pertaining to admission into MBBS/ BDS Course, under NEET 2016 rendering them ineligible in the second counselling (having failed to avail admission to college allotted in the first counselling) be also declared arbitrary and illegal. Alternatively the time for deposit of the requisite fee of tuition in the college allotted be extended by a period of two weeks, submitted counsel for the petitioners, such that the career of petitioners is not jeopardised.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned AAG and Mr. M.A. Khan appearing for the respondents-State and RUHS (5 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] respectively have submitted that the guideline/instruction for counselling for NEET UG (Medical/ Dental Counselling, 2016 and the dates for commencement of the session for the first online counselling was notified on 24-8-2016. The guidelines/ instructions for counselling for NEET UG (Medical/ Dental Counselling, 2016 were uploaded on the State's website on 26-8-2016. In terms thereof the candidates were adequately 5 notified to be ready for admission in the colleges as may be allotted to them as per merit and preference along with requisite tuition fee strictly and without exception, within time given for the purpose. Admissions in the first round counselling as per merit of the candidates have been completed. The petitioners were allotted the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Sitapura Industrial Area Jaipur as per their merit and choice vide allotment letter 5-9-2016 and were to report to the said college upto 8-9-2016 (till 6.00 PM) along with requisite fee and original documents. They failed to do so and report to the college till end of working hours on 8-9-2016. It was submitted that, in the circumstances the petitioners failing to report to the allotted college for admission to MBBS they have to sadly suffer the inexorable consequences of both of loosing their seats and being ineligible for second and subsequent rounds of online counselling. There is no good ground to circumvent the conditions set out in the guidelines for admissions to MBBS/ BDS courses. Deviation from the concerned guidelines would be breach of law and disrupt the admission calendar of admission to MBBS/BDS formulated in compliance with judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India [(2005)2 SCC 65]. It has been submitted that 6 in fact classes in the MBBS/ BDS Course, 2016 classes have commenced from 13-9-2016. The mere fact that the second counselling is to be conducted between 23 and 24-9-2016 for vacant seats is of no consequence for ascertaining the rights of the petitioners beyond the guidelines/instruction of NEET (UG) Counselling 2016.
Mr. Saransh Saini, appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospita, Sitapura Industrial Area Jaipur has submitted that in terms of guidelines for NEET UG (Medical/ Dental Counselling, 2016 by not reporting to the college the petitioners cannot now be allowed to appear in the second counselling. The college has reported the absence of the petitioners to the convener and their seats in issue declared vacant.
Heard. Considered.
A similar issue came up before this court in case of Pankaj Kumar Gangwal and three connected matters in SBCWP No.9026/2014, wherein this court vide order dated 4- 9-2014 held that the candidates having failed to report to the college allotted to them in the first counselling would have no right to appear in second counselling--no matter whatever may have been the reason therefor including financial 7 hardship. The public purpose of the calendar fixed for admission into MBBS/ BDS Course each (6 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] year with reference to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India [(2005)2 SCC 65] was emphasised. Similar situation obtains in the present case.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the instructions and the guidelines for NEET UG (Medical/ Dental Counselling, 2016 per-emptorily providing that the candidates who do not join the college allotted in the first round of counselling will be ineligible to be considered for all subsequent rounds of counselling are arbitrary. Arbitrariness of a condition/ provision cannot be dependent upon personal discomfiture of petitioners for reason of their own making. They were adequately notified of the terms and conditions of Counselling and need for strict adherence thereto. Hundred of other candidates both general category not necessarily rich and SC/ OBC category not necessarily poor have being compliant with adhering to reporting to allotted colleges with the requisite fee as applicable and original certificates in proof of eligibility. The issue has to be considered in the context of the policy for admission to MBBS/BDS each year. Counselling and 8 admissions to Medical Colleges is an issue which has engaged the attention of the Apex Court for over two decades warranting fixing of the academic calendar in Medical Education. The sanctity of calendar fixed for admissions into MBBS/ BDS amongst others is extremely important as it has a bearing upon the quality of Medical Education itself as also transparency. The respondents have a right to determine conditions for admission and procedure therefor. Nothing arbritrary can be attributed to the condition for admission to MBBS/BDS in the College allotted in online counselling as set out in the instruction/guidelines for NEET (UG) Counselling 2016.
In view of aforesaid, I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case the petitioners have no case. There is no force in the writ petitions. They are dismissed." Apparently the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Harshita Bothra/Shiv Karan Roj (supra).
So far as judgment in the case of Suman Khichad (supra) is concerned, the said order was passed on concession made by the Convener, RPMT, 2015, who was present in the Court and the judgment does not decide the controversy and/or the issue raised therein and, therefore, the order passed in the case of Suman (7 of 7) [CW-4500/2017] Khichad (supra) cannot be taken as a precedent.
Consequently, in the light of judgment in the case of Harshita Bothra (supra) and Shiv Karan Roj (supra) there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. A.K. Chouhan/-146