Delhi High Court
Monika Kaushik vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 18 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003IIIAD(DELHI)760, 103(2003)DLT693
Author: C.K. Mahajan
Bench: C.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in the three years Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Course commenced from October, 2002.
2. In response to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 for admission to Three Years Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Course for the academic session 2002-03, the petitioner applied for admission in the said course. Selection to the course was to be strictly on the basis of aggregate of best four subjects obtained by a candidate in Class XII of a candidate. 5% weightage was to be given to those candidates, who passed Class XII in first attempt. It was so stated in the prospectus. It was also clearly mentioned mat "Application forms complete in all respects along with attested photocopies of all certificates should reach the office of the Principal, School of Nursing, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi-95 by 21.8.2002 (1.00p.m.). Photocopies of Application From/Incomplete Applications will not be entertained. On 10th September, 2002, the respondent No. 2 issued a list of successful candidates with their percentage. The petitioner was denied admission as she was not found eligible for admission. Her application was found incomplete and was thus not selected. The petitioner made a representation to the Principal and authorities of the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the Health Minister. The Medical Superintendent failed to take any action. Hence the present petition.
3. The respondents opposed the petition and stated that the petitioner was not found eligible for admission as her application was incomplete. Attested copies of documents as detailed in the prospectus were required to be furnished along with their respective applications.
4. The petitioner failed to furnish attested copies of 10th and 12th pass certificates, which was a mandatory requirement. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee comprising of three members. In the additional affidavit the respondents stated that non-Science candidates whose application forms were incomplete and did not conform to the mandatory requirements were not given admissions. The petitioner had also not come with clean hands. She was apprised of the reason for rejection of her candidature. There was no cause of action disclosed or infraction of a legal right to warrant the present petition.
5. By order dated 10th December, 2002, Counsel for the petitioner was allowed to inspect the entire record. The record was inspected. An affidavit was filed stating therein that at least eight students have been admitted by the respondents on the basis of provisional certificate of Class XII. The names of those students have been disclosed in the affidavit. These candidates filed their Class XII certificate after getting the admission. It was also stated in the affidavit that one Ms. Anjana Dogra had not submitted her Class XII certificate till the time of inspection.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record.
7. It is not in dispute that aforesaid 8 students were given admission by the respondents on the basis of provisional certificate of Class XII. However, these students had furnished their Class X certificates as per requirement. Counsel for the respondents stated that admissions were given to these candidates for the reason that they had qualified their Class XII examination in the year 2002 and till the depositing of applications by these candidates, they were not issued Class XII certificates by the Board.
8. The prospectus enjoins the candidates to file applications complete in all respects along with attested photocopies of all certificates. Incomplete application would not be entertained. I have also perused the photocopy of the application form submitted by the petitioner with the respondents. The application does not disclose the details of enclosures sent along with the application. I have also perused the papers of the Scrutiny Committee. From the perusal of the same, I find that the petitioner failed to furnish Class X and Class XII pass certificates. However, the petitioner enclosed the provisional certificate of Class XII. The petitioner thus filed an incomplete application. The respondents were within the right to reject the application. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of satisfying the Court that there was compliance on her part, which she had miserably failed to show. The respondents have placed on record a list of candidates, whose candidatures were rejected as they failed to comply with the mandatory instructions contained in the prospectus. The petitioner has not been singled out. She would have been entitled to 5% weightage if her application was found to be complete in all respects. The respondent neither acted arbitrarily nor unreasonably as it followed the norms/ guidelines and the requirements as laid down in the prospectus. Failure on the part of candidates to comply with the terms and conditions for admission would not entitled them to relief. Every institution has a discretion to adopt any rules, practice or issue regulation with regard to admission and so long as the rules, practice and regulation are strictly adhered to and unless it is shown to the contrary, the Court should be slow to interfere.
9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the mandatory conditions for grant of admission were not complied with. The application of the petitioner was incomplete and rejected. The petitioner has not disclosed violation of any right legal or otherwise to warrant interference. There is no merit in the petition.
10. Dismissed.