Allahabad High Court
Rahul Prasad vs Institute Of Medical Sciences, Banaras ... on 25 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991ALL8, (1990)2UPLBEC1039, AIR 1991 ALLAHABAD 8, 1990 ALL. L. J. 693, 1990 (2)UPLBEC1039, (1990) 2 ALL WC 1104
ORDER
1. By means of instant petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner beseeches this Court to command the respondents to admit him in the I year M.B.B.S. Course of the year 1989-90 at the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (hereinafter called the Institute), against the five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of Degree Course of Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as the University), treating him to be such a bona fide student.
2. Sometimes in February, 1989, the Institute notified holding of Combined Competitive Entrance Examination 1989 leading to admission to its I year M.B.B.S. Course of 1989-90 and issued an Information Leaflet containing the requisite informations with regard to date of receipt of application form, dale of examination, eligibility requirements, place of examination, number of seats, mode of filling the application form, syllabus, papers and evaluation etc. According to Information Leaflet, last date for receving the complete application form in the office of the Controller of Examination of the University was 11th March, 1989 and the date of examination was 4th June, 1989. However, the examination actually took place on 22nd October, 1989. The petitioner submitted the application form on 27th February, 1989 and along therewith, according to him, he also submitted a certificate obtained from the Faculty of Science, issued in the second week of February, 1989, showing that he was a bona fide student of Faculty of Science of the University as he was claiming benefit of being bona fide student of the University for the purposes of admission against the five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of Degree Course of the University. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination held on 22nd October, 1989. By means of communication dated 15th December, 1989, the petitioner was informed that his name found place in the waiting list under Banaras Hindu University category candidates to be considered for admission against five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of the Degree Course of the University. This communication called upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements contained therein. One of the requirements was submission of certificate in the pro forma enclosed therewith testifying that the petitioner was a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University. According to the petitioner he obtained the certificate of his being bona fide student of the University from the Dean of Faculty of Science on 29th December, 1989 and submitted the same. The petitioner asserts that he met Deputy Registrar in the evening of 1st January, 1990 and was informed that the Director of Institute had refused to admit the petitioner due to shortage of attendance in his B.Sc. Part HI course. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to admit him on the ground of shortage of attendance. Hence this petition.
3. Relying upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Leena Gupta v. Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Vara-nasi, reported in(1989) 1 UPLBEC 619 : (AIR 1989 All 35), Sri Mool Behari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, made, in substance, following two submissions to assail the refusal to admit the petitioner in the aforesaid M.B.B.S. Courser-
(a) that the respondents erred in not treating the petitioner to be a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University on the ground of shortage of attendance in as much as the attendance cannot be taken to be a relevant factor in determining the factum of petitioner's being bona fide student of Degree Course of the University; and
(b) that, in any case, the respondents, having accepted the application form of the petitioner and having permitted him to appear in the entrance examination, and also. having notified him that his name figured in the waiting list of candidates for admission against five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide student of Degree Course of the University cannot be allowed to deny admission to the petitioner on the ground that he was not a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University.
4. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Dinesh Kacker, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the decision in the case of Km. Leena Gupta (AIR 1989 All 35) (supra) had no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and that requirement of minimum attendance, for the purposes of treating a candidate to be a bona fide student of Degree Course of the Univer-
sity, was a relevant and valid consideration. With regard to second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was urged by Sri Kacker that acceptance of the form submitted by the petitioner and the permission granted him to appear in the entrance examination was provisional and subject to the fulfilment of eligibility requirements as contained in and notified through the Information Leaflet notfied earlier.
5. In order to determine the controversy as to whether the petitioner can be treated to be a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University for the purposes of admission to M.B.B.S Course 1989-90 at the Institute against quota of five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of Degree Course of the University it will be apposite to notice the relevant condition laid down and notified in the Information Leaflet which is as follows :--
"A quota of 5 supernumerary seats is reserved for the bona fide students of Degree Course of the Banaras Hindu University (as per Appendix I) who qualify in the P.M.T."
6. Appendix I mentioned above is to be found at page 16 of the Information Leaflet. The said Appendix I is reproduced below :--
"A quota of 5 supernumerary seats is reserved for the bona fide students of degree course who have attended the prescribed courses of studies by having actually studied and pursued the course in accordance with the attendance requirements, that is, haying a minimum of 75% attendance in the course/ session. The minimum attendance of 75% will be computed only at the end of the session for determining whether a student is on the roll of the University on the date of the P.M.T. A student who does not fulfil the minimum attendance of 75% will not be treated as a bona fide student on the roll of the University. The student will also be required to submit a 'Bona fide Student Certificate' only in the prescribed pro forma issued by the University. No other certificate issued by any Faculty or College in any other format will be entertained. A student who has not fulfilled the minimum attendance requirement of 75% in the degree course will not be a Bona fide Student. Such students will be selected from amongst themselves in order of merit in the P.M.T. In case of equal marks of the last seat, the selection for the last seat will be made in accordance with the clause 8(iii) above as applicable to the general candidates.
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VARANASI-221005 BONA FIDE STUDENT CERTIFICATE Certified that Mr./ Miss.................. son/ daughter of ..................... has been a bona fide student of .................. in Class ...................... during the Session .......................... and fulfils the attendance requirement, having attended 75% of the prescribed courses of studies, and was, as such on the rolls of the faculty/College at end of the Session 1989-90 immediately preceding the Pre-Medical Test, 1989, of the Banaras Hindu University held 4th June, 1989.
Director, Institute of..............................
Dean, faculty of....................................
Principal......................................"
7. The abovenoted condition and the Appendix I, read together define the bona fide student of Degree Course of the University to be one who has actually studied and pursued the course in accordance with the attendance requirements, that is, having a minimum 75% attendance in the course/ session, to be computed at the end of the session. Appendix I emphasises that a student who does not fulfil the minimum attendance of 75% will not be treated to be a bona fide student of the University. It further lays down that only such 'bona fide student certificate' will be admissible which is in the prescribed pro forma issued by the University and no other certificate issued by any Faculty or College in any other format will be entertained. By way of clarification, it further, provides that a student who has not fulfilled the minimum attendance requirement of 75% in the Degree Course will not be a bona fide student.
8. In support of his claim for being treated a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University, the petitioner submille two certificates, one dated 27th Feburary, 1989 and the other dated 29th December, 1989. A photostat copy of the certificate dated 27th February, 1989 is on record as Annexure S. A-l to the supplementary affidavit, sworn by Sri A.P. Tripathy, and filed on behalf, of the respondents on 8th May, 1990. A photostat copy of the certificate dated 29th December, 1989 has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure 2 to the petition. Indisputably, none of the two certificates was in the pro forma issued by the University. The certificate dated 27th February, 1989, which was submitted by the petitioner along with his application form for the entrance examination was, it appears, issued under the seal and signature of the Assistant Registrar, Faculty of Science, Banaras Hindu Unviversity, Varanasi. It testified that the petitioner was a bona fide student of the Faculty of Science of the University and was studying in B.Sc. Class Part III. The other certificate dated 29th December, 1989 submitted by the petitioner in December, 1989 certified that the petitioner had been a bona fide student of the Faculty of Science in Class B.Sc. (Honours), Part III, during the Session 1988-89 and did not fulfil the attendance requirement, having attended 56.86% of the prescribed course of studies. This certificate was issue by the Dean, Faculty of Science of the University.
9. From a bare perusal of the two certificates, noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of having a minimum 75% of attendance in the relevant session and as such, according to the condition of eligibility for being treated as a bona fide student of Degree Course of the Unviersity, he could not be treated to be a bona fide student of the University for the purposes of admission to the M.B.B.S. Course of 1989-90 at the Institute against the five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of degree course of the University. The petitioner lacked basic qualification of having a minmum 75% attendance in the session of 1988-89. He, therefore, could not be treated to be a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University, which was sine qua non for being considered against the quota of five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of Degree Course of the Unviersity. The requirement of 75% attendance in the session is, obviously, for ensuring that only such students of Degree Course of the University may be considered against the five supernumerary seats in question as are genuine, sincere and without deceit, fraud or pretence and also to ensure that the privilege of being considered against the five supernumerary seats reserved for bona fide students of Degree Course of the University may not be abused by knaves for the purposes of securing admission to the M.B.B.S. Course by feigning to be bona fide student of the University and derive undue advantage over others.
10. Reliance upon the decision in the case of Km. Leena Gupta (AIR 1989 All 35) (supra) by the petitioner for the proposition that attendance cannot be taken to be a relevant factor in determining the factum of petitioner's being bona fide student of Degree Course of the University is misplaced. In the case of Km. Leena Gupta, the court was concerned with the admission of M.B.B.S. Course for the session 1988-89 and not the session of 1989-90. For the purposes of 1988-89 session's course, the requirement for being entitled to be treated a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University was different than the requirement for the purposes of being treated to be a bona fide student in relation to the M.B.B.S. Course of the year 1989-90. The condition necessary for being treated as bona fide student of Degree Course of the University for the purposes of M.B.B.S. Course of 1988-89, which was subject matter of consideration in the case of Km. Leena Gupta (AIR 1989 All 35) (supra), is as follows (at p. 37 of AIR) :--
"A quota of 5 supernumerary seats is reserved for the bona fide students of Degree Course who have to attended the prescribed courses of studies and who are on the rolls of Banaras Hindu University at the time of appearance in the Pre-Medical Test....."
11. It is to be noticed that in the condition quota above the expression "Bona fide students Degree Course" covers all the students who had attended the prescribed course of studies and who were on the rolls of the University at the lime of appearance in the Pre-Medical Test. The condition did not provide for minimum attendance as is provided in the condition relevant for the purposes of 1989-90 course. The decision in the case of Km. Leena Gupta (supra) turned on the interpretation of the words 'bona fide' which expression, according to the decision, conveys an idea of absence of intent to deceive or pursuing the matter on false pretence or freak motive or for achieving some ulterior purpose. In the condition regarding consideration of the candidature of bona fide students of the University against five supernumerary seats reserved for them in the 1989-90 course the expression "bona fide student" has been assigned special meaning. In view of the fact that the expression "bona fide stu-dents" has been assigned specific meaning it is not permissible to take into account any other meaning where an expression is assigned any special meaning general meaning thereof is inadmisible. Thus the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.
12. The second condition of the learned counsel, though attractive, does not stand scrutiny. The respondents have filed a photostat copy of the form filled up by the petitioner for the purposes of entrance examination leading to admission to the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the year 1989-90 at the Institute as Annexure 1 to the second supplementary affidavit sworn by Sri L.B. Lal and filed on 3rd May, 1990. Along with the said supplementary affidavit a photostat copy of the pro forma of the admit-card with regard to Annexure II. A photostat copy of the merit list of Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi students in relation to the examination in question is also annexd as Annexure III to the supplementary affidavit of Sri L.B. Lal. A perusal of the application form indicates that the petitioner was previously allowed to appear in the test as Banaras Hindu University student. The admit-card, a photostat copy whereof is Annexure II to the supplementary affidavit, notified itself to be 'provisional admit-card'. To the merit list (Annexure III to the said supplementary affidavit) three notes are appended. Notes 2 and 3 are relevant. Note No. 2 says that merit list of Banaras Hindu University students is provisional in respect of such candidates as have not submitted certificate of bona fide student of Banaras Hindu Univerity. Note No. 3 stipulates that the merit list is provisional and subject to the eligibility conditions being fulfilled by the candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner had not submitted certificate of bona fide student of Banaras Hindu University in the manner prescribed. The petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility condition also as he did not have minimum percentage of attendance of his credit. Three annexures to; the supplementary affidavit of Sri L.B. Lal unmistakably point out that the petitioner had always been aware of the fact that acceptance of his application form and permission to appear in the entrance exam ination was provisional and not final. In this view of the matter, no benefit can ensue in favour of the petitioner by the acceptance of the examination form and permssion to appear in the entrance examination. The petitioner did not submit the requisite certificate of being a bona fide student of the Univerity along with his application form in the required manner and that is why he was called upon by means of the communication dated 15th December, 1989, a copy whereof is Annexure-A to the writ petition, to submit certificate of bona fide student in the pro forma enclosed therewith. The pro forma was the one which has already been quoted earlier. He again failed to submit the requisite certificate.
13. The petitioner was not a bona fide student of the University within the meaning assigned to the expression in the relevant condition regulating the determination of the question of a candidate' being bona fide student of Degree Course of the University for the purpose of M.B.B.S. Course 1989-90 and he was aware of this position. Knowing fully well that he was not a bona fide student of Degree Course of the University for the purposes of M.B.B.S. course under reference the petitioner tried to get admission by submitting wrong certificate purporting to testify him to be a bona fide student.
14. There is yet another disturbing feature which cannot be overlooked. In Paragraph 9 of the petition it is asserted that "along with his application for appearing in the Pre-Medical Test Examination, the petitioner submitted his certificate obtained from the Faculty of Science issued in the second week of Feburary, 1989 showing the petitioner to be a bona fide student of the Faculty of Science, Banaras Hindu University and annexed the same with his application form". The certificate referred to in paragraph 9, aforesaid, is undoubtedly the certificate dated 27th February, 1989. With regard to this certificate the petitioner again asserts in paragraph 10 of his supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 18th April, 1990, filed on 3rd May, 1990, that it was issued by the Dean, Faculty of Science under his signature. The averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition as well as in paragraph 10 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit are clearly false statement of fact in as much as Banaras Hindu University certificate which the petitioner alleges to have submitted along with his application form was issued by the Assistant Registerar and not the Dean Faculty of Science as is evident from the photostat copy of the certificate dated 27th February, 1989, appended as Annexure S.A-1 to the supplementary affidavit of Sri A.P. Tripathi. The petitioner is guilty of making a false statement on oath, obviously, for the purpose of getting relief from this Court in the instant proceedings. It is well settled that the relief may be denied to a petitioner who is guilty of making a false statement in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that none of the contentions raised on his behalf is tenable, the petitioner, being guilty of making a false statement, has forfeited his claim for the releif, if any.
15. On the facts and for the reasons, stated hereinbefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
16. Petition dismissed.