Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh vs The Maharshi Dayanand University And ... on 31 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR32
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. This writ petition relates to admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course in one of the Medical Colleges in the State of Haryana. At the time of motion hearing, reliance was placed by Mr. I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner, on two earlier decisions of this Court. The view taken in the unreported decision in C.W.P. No. 15367 of 1991 dated October 30, 1991, was that the lapse in filling up the form on the part of the candidates should be condoned on the ground that they were minors and did not fully realize the implications of writing certain words in the prescribed form. The referring order shows that the above proposition could not be accepted in principle by the Division Bench. In order to settle the question of principle, therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench. That is how this petition has been placed before us.
2. The significant question before us is whether the candidates filing in forms relating to admission to educational institutions are bound by what they actually stated in the form or they can be allowed to turn round and take up a different position at a later stage. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to state the facts of this case.
3. A joint entrance test, called PMT, is held for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses in various Medical Colleges in the State of Haryana. There are two Colleges for MBBS, namely, the Government Medical College, Rohtak and Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha, and there are two Colleges imparting BDS Course, namely the Government Dental College, Rohtak and DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamuna Nagar. In the prescribed form for admission, the candidate is required to give his option whether he wants to be considered for admission to the MBBS Course and well as for Dental Course or for only one of the them. He has also to indicate his preference with regard to the college. The petitioner filled in the form and appeared in the PMT held on July 18, 1993. He was placed at serial No. 85 of the merit list as a result of the said examination in the general category. Having regard to the merit secured by the petitioner, he did not become entitled to be given admission for MBBS Course- He could not also be given admission to the BDS Course, in that in the form itself the petitioner had opted for MBBS Course only. Resultantly, two candidates, who were lower in merit than the petitioner, were given admission in the BDS Course. It is against this background that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to grant to the petitioner admission in the BDS Course.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by reference to Annexures P-1 and P-2 submitted that the petitioner was called for interview, though a formal one, for admission to both the Courses, namely, M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. and that he opted to join either of the two courses before the Admission Committee and this was reiterated by him in his application dated September 3, 1993,Annexure P-2. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that petitioner could not be ignored for admission to the B.D.S. Course as per his merit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on two decisions of this Court in Sonu Balhara v. M.D. University, Rohtak, 1989 (6) S.L.R. 67, and in CWP No. 15367 of 1991 decided by a Division Bench on October 30, 1991 Madhvika Khurana (Minor) v. M.D. University and Ors. to contend that petitioner was entitled to be admitted in B.D.S. Course even though he had not mentioned in the admission form that he be also considered for admission to the said Course, in case he did not merit higher enough to get admission in M.B.B.S.
6. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In the first instance, reference to the substance of the interview letter, Annexure P-1 would show that the petitioner was not called for interview for the two courses, i.e. M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Inference drawn from the subject matter of the letter is totally misplaced. It only refers to the name of the Entrance Examination and cannot be taken to mean that petitioner was called for interview for the two courses. Again there is nothing to show that the petitioner opted for either of the two courses before the Admission Committee, Reference to Annexure P-2 is of no help as it came into being after the admissions had been made and was received in the office of the respondents on September 27, 1993 i.e. after the filing of the writ petition. Even otherwise for more reasons to be noticed later, a Candidate seeking admission, which is time bound process, on the strength of an admission form, cannot later on, especially after the declaration of the result, turn round and say that he be granted admission in a course which he chose not to opt at the time of filling the form, though it was open to him to do so at the initial stage.
7. The judgment of this Court in Sonu Balhara's case (supra), does not advance the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel or the respondents has rightly pointed out that the conditions laid down in the prospectus and the columns to be filled in the admission form at the time of admission of Sonu Balhara's case are in terms different for the academic session 1993-94 in which the petitioner is seeking admission. In that case, a candidate was to indicate his option by writing "One, Two, Three or Four" in the box provided below his/her preference for the course and in case he/she failed to do so, he/she would be considered for M.B.B.S. in the first instance and in case he/she failed to gel admission in M.B.B.S. as per his/her merit, then in B.D.S. Petitioner in that case did not indicate her options by writing "One, Two, Three or Four" as is clear from para 15 of the report but only wrote "1". In this situation, it was taken that the candidate having failed to mentioned "One, Two etc." it could not be said that her choice was restricted to M.B.B.S. only and the case would fall in category "Three", and category "Three" provided admission for both. This could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been clearly brought out in the written statement of this case that a candidate higher in merit in the Entrance Examination was to be offered admission to M.B.B.S. and other to the B.D.S. unless a candidate opts exclusively for one of the two Courses. Reference to Annexure R-1/1, copy of the admission form of the petitioner shows that the petitioner against Column No. 1 providing whether the candidates were to be considered for M.B.B.S only or B.D.S. only or both, wrote "M.B.B.S. only." In column No. 2 he indicated the colleges in order of preference and left column No. 3 blank. This column related to the names of the colleges in order of preference, if selected for B.D.S. Course. This clearly brings out that the petitioner consciously applied for admission to the M.B.B,S. Course and did not opt for the B.D.S. Course, even if he was not selected for M.B.B.S. This is a conspicuous and deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. If he was interested in getting admission to the B.D.S. Course, then in column No. 1, he would not have written "M.B.B.S. only" even if the choice of the colleges was not indicated in column No. 3 of the admission form. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it will lead to total uncertainty in the matter of admission which is to be done in a time frame and the rights of those who got admission would be effected. Moreover, no additional seat can be created in Medical Colleges unless approved by the Medical Council of India. The colleges are bound to make admission as per the admission form. If options are allowed to candidates at a later date to opt for a different course, as in the present case, it will lead to situation where it will be extremely difficult to complete the admission within a time frame. In a given case, a candidate who has applied against a seat of General Category, may thereafter say that he be considered against the sports quota seat or against the backward quota seat or backward area seat having regard to his merit in the Entrance Examination. In another situation, a sportsman, though did not apply against this category can later on contend by producing the relevant certificates, that he be considered against that quota as it was by share inadvertance he forgot to fill in the relevant column and attach the necessary certificates at the time of submission of the admission form. Thus there would remain no finality to the admission form filled by a candidate within the time allowed and he will have an option to make amends there to at any time suiting to his convenience and keeping the college authorities and other candidates, on the waiting list on tender-hooks. Such a situation cannot be allowed to happen. The form has in all nine columns. In column No. 3 of the form candidates are required to opt the names of the colleges in order of preference if selected in B.D.S. Course. Petitioner did not fill this column and allowed it to remain blank and as already noticed wrote "M.B.B.S. only" against column No. 1.
8. The order of the Division Bench in Madvika Khurana's case (supra), has been perused in detail. Though the facts of the decided case as also of this case are almost identical, only difference being that in that case, the petitioner had written "M.B.B.S where as in the present case, he wrote "M.B.B.S. only". With utmost respect to the learned Judges, constituting the Division Bench we regret our inability to agree to the view taken therein.
9. The Division Bench took the view in favour of the petitioner of that case only on the ground that she was a minor and did not carefully read the form and understood the full implication of not adding the words B.D.S." as well. There is no other reason given in support of the view taken. Minority of a candidate can hardly be taken to be a ground to give relief and if this is allowed, then admission to professional and other colleges, where students seek admission after passing ten plus one or ten plus two, who are all normally minors, would never be completed within the time frame and will encourage the students to say whatever they like at a given time. It will encourage them to give wrong information or incomplete information, thus enabling them to take whatever stand suits them at a given time. As already noticed above, it may lead to a disastrous result. Such a situation cannot thus be allowed to prevail by approving the view taken by the Division Bench in Madhvika Khurana's case (supra). This apart, it is not shown that Raj Singh petitioner herein is a minor. He has not filed this petition as a minor as was the situation in Madhivika Khurana's case (supra)
10. Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhvika Khurana's case (supra), cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is over-ruled.
11. The college, who is entitled to grant admission, has precisely done what it was required to do and it could not wait in granting admission and had no option but to grant admission as per the options exercised in the admission form and as per the prospectus, Support for this view can be had from Ravdeep Kaur v. The State of Punjab, I.L.R. (1985) 1 Punjab and Haryana 343, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State of Punjab etc., (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 212. The Full Bench approved the view taken in Ravdeep Kaur's case (supra), wherein it was held that the eligibility for admission to a Course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, these having the force of law.
12. In this case, the prospectus under the head "Method of admission" provided:-
"The candidates higher in merit list will be offered seats for MBBS Course and others for BDS Course in order of merit subject to the availability of seats unless a candidate opted exclusively for one of the courses only. The Institution will be allotted by the Interview Board on the basis of merit and the preference mentioned in the form".
13. The petitioner herein clearly mentioned "M.B.B.S. only" in column No. 1 of the admission form and thus he cannot be heard to say that he be granted admission to the B.D.S. Course.
14. Before parting with this judgment; we would like to make some observations which we consider to be important relating to this subject. Firstly, we would like to observe that a student may be permitted to supplement what is written in the admission form within well recognised limits but not to supplant what is written therein. We may also observe that where what is written is clear, categorical and admits of no doubt, the candidate is bound by what is written and he cannot be easily permitted to wriggle out of it. He has to suffer the consequence of whatever has been written, because the ordinary presumption is that such form are filled in by candidates with due application of mind and even guidance from the elders. This specially holds good in the case of candidates applying for professional course like the one under consideration. The above observation must however, be read subject to the important reservation that if what is written is on account of inadvertent error, the correct position can be brought to the notice of the authorities at the appropriate stage for rectifying the error.
15. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.