Gujarat High Court
Dr. Madalsa Basant Agrawal vs Gujarat University & on 27 June, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8250 of 2014
=============================================
DR. MADALSA BASANT AGRAWAL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND YAGNIK, ADVOCATE with MR KRUNAL K MODI, ADVOCATE
for the Petitioner(s) No.1
MR SN SHELAT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for
the Respondent(s) No.1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 27/06/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:-
"9. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased:
(A) to hold and declare that denial of admission for the academic year 2014-15 to the petitioner in Postgraduate Degree and Diploma Course in Medical Sciences in the Gujarat University based on her merit/ranking in the open entrance examination, relying upon Rule 1.4 of Rules of admission at Annexure-A is arbitrary, discriminating, unfair, unreasonable, suffers from non-application of mind, contrary to the rules, and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence illegal and unconstitutional.
(B) to direct respondents to consider the petitioner eligible Page 1 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER for admission into Postgraduate Degree and Diploma Course in Medical Sciences in the Gujarat University and be further pleased to direct respondents to give admission to the petitioner in accordance with her merit based on her performance in the entrance examination conducted by the respondents for the academic year 2014-2015."
2. The petitioner is a doctor and holds a degree of M.B.B.S. from the Gujarat University. She completed her M.B.B.S. studies in January, 2011 which was followed by internship in October, 2011. The petitioner got admission in Diploma in Post Graduate Medical Science in the Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, in March, 2012. The petitioner appeared in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination held by the respondents on 25th January, 2014 and secured good marks. However, according to the petitioner, she was orally declared ineligible for admission because on the date of filing the form for appearing in the entrance examination as well as on the date of examination and on the date of counselling for admission, she was pursuing two year diploma course in post graduation in Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth at Pimpri, Pune. It is the case of the petitioner that she has completed her two year diploma in post-graduation course on 31 st March, 2014, viz., the last date of counselling. That the post-graduate course in which she is seeking admission was to start from 1 st May, 2014, that is, after a gap of one month. That rule 1.4 of the Rules Governing Admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Medical Courses in the Affiliated Medical Colleges/Institutions of Gujarat University for the academic year 2014-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Admission Rules"), provides that a candidate who is currently engaged in P.G. Medical studies in the University or any other University or equivalent Page 2 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER body is not eligible. On completion of the course, he/she becomes eligible. It is the case of the petitioner that rule 1.4 cannot be interpreted and implemented in a manner that denies eligibility to her and consequently admission into post- graduate courses. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove.
3. Mr. Anand Yagnik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while it is true that on the date when the petitioner applied for appearing in the entrance test, she was pursuing the diploma course and by the time the post- graduate course commences, she would complete the course and hence, at no point of time would she be pursuing two courses at a time. The attention of the court was invited to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court for admission to post- graduate courses to point out that the commencement of academic session is only on 30 th June, 2014 whereas the petitioner completed the Diploma in Post Graduate Medical Sciences at Pune on 31st March, 2014 as is evident from the certificate issued by the Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College at Pune. It was contended that the object behind rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules is that a candidate should not pursue two courses at a time. Since the petitioner has completed the Diploma in Post Graduate Medical Sciences course on 31 st March 2014, therefore, on the date of commencement of the P.G. Degree and Diploma Courses in the colleges affiliated to the respondent University, the petitioner would not be pursuing the course and, therefore, she cannot be denied admission. It was urged that rule 1.4 should be interpreted accordingly. It was submitted that since the petitioner would be Page 3 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER completing her course on 31st March, 2014, she becomes eligible for admission much before the post-graduate course starts in the Gujarat University. Referring to rule 3.1 of the Admission Rules, it was pointed out that in terms of the said rule, the academic year starts from 1st May to 30th April of the next year to submit that the academic year has been advanced and has started from 5 th April, 2014, however, even then, since the petitioner has completed her course on 31 st March, 2014, she is eligible and entitled to get admission based on merits. It was argued that rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules cannot be interpreted to mean that a candidate should not be pursuing another course on the date of making the application or appearing in the examination and counselling. It was submitted that the above rules are rules governing admission only and that if the rule is interpreted in favour of the petitioner, it will not frustrate any other rule of the Admission Rules. It was further submitted that rule 1.4 should not be interpreted in a regressive manner and should be given a purposive interpretation namely, that the object being not to permit a candidate to pursue two courses at a time. It was argued that in any case, all that the petitioner seeks is admission on merits when she is duly qualified. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondents to give her admission in accordance with her merit based on her performance in the entrance examination conducted by the respondents for the academic year 2014-2015.
4. Opposing the petition, Mr. S.N. Shelat, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that as on the date of the application for appearing Page 4 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER in the entrance examination for the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Medical Courses, the petitioner was not eligible, inasmuch as, she was pursuing post-graduation medical studies in another university. It was submitted that the relevant date on which a candidate should be eligible is the date on which she makes the application, whereas on such date the petitioner was not eligible as she was pursuing post graduate studies elsewhere. According to the learned counsel, there has to be some certainty in the matter of admissions and hence, a candidate has to be eligible in terms of the rules as on the date on which the application is made. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Principal, King George's Medical College, Lucknow v. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal and Another, AIR 1984 SC 221, for the proposition that the qualification prescribed in the Ordinance is required to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission in the M.D. course of studies. It is not enough if that qualification is fulfilled on the date of the examination. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. M.J. Varghese and another v. The Director of Medical Education, Trivandrum and others, AIR 1988 Kerala 200, wherein in the facts of the said case, the court had held that the qualification has to be adjudged on the date of the application and that the petitioner had obtained a degree which at the relevant time when the application was made was not a recognised degree. The said degree came to be recognised subsequently after the date of the application. The court held that recognition of a degree is an academic exercise, not a mere administrative formality. Acquisition of a recognised degree was an essential Page 5 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER basic qualification. The qualification has to be adjudged as on the date of the application and on that date, the petitioner did not have a degree recognised by the Kerala University. The court accordingly rejected the petition on the said ground.
5. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Patna College, Patna v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1966 SC 707, for the proposition that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. It was, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner not being eligible on the date when she made the application for admission to the course, is not entitled to be admitted to the post-graduate degree course.
6. In rejoinder, Mr. Yagnik for the petitioner submitted that both the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the University are decisions wherein the question of qualification of the concerned candidate as on the date of making the application for admission was involved and did not pertain to the eligibility of the candidate. It was submitted that the petitioner herein was holding the requisite qualifications for appearing in the entrance examination in June, 2011.
Page 6 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDERTherefore, both the above decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Kerala High Court would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner is duly qualified in terms of rule 1.2 of the Admission Rules. It was accordingly urged that a purposive interpretation of rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules is required to be made and the rule should be read to mean that if a candidate is not pursuing two curriculums at any particular point of time, he/she would be eligible under the said rule.
7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the decisions cited at the bar.
8. The short question involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner who was pursuing a post-graduate medical course at the D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth at Pune at the time when the entrance examination was held as well as when the result was declared and at the time of the first counselling, is eligible to get admission to the Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Medical Courses in the Affiliated Medical Colleges/Institutions of Gujarat University.
9. The facts are not in dispute. It is an admitted position that as on the date when the petitioner made an application for admission, as on the date when the entrance examination was held and on the date of counselling, the petitioner was pursuing post-graduate studies at another institution. However, in terms of the rules governing admission to post-graduate degree and diploma medical courses, the academic year starts from 1st May to 30th April of the next year. The question that arises for consideration is that since the Page 7 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER academic year starts from 1 st May, whether a candidate who has completed a course which he/she was currently engaged in at the time when the application was made, prior to 1 st May of the said year, would be eligible for admission?
10. Rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules postulates that a candidate who is currently engaged in post-graduate medical studies in that University or in any other University or equivalent body is not eligible. The rule, however, says that on completion of the course, he/she becomes eligible. Thus, the rule expressly provides that a candidate who is currently engaged in post-graduate medical studies in any University or equivalent body is not eligible for admission to the post- graduate degree or diploma medical courses. The only question that needs to be examined is as to on which date, the candidate should not be currently engaged in post-graduate medical studies so as to be eligible for admission to the post- graduate degree or diploma medical courses.
11. It is by now well-settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that a person is required to fulfill the eligibility criteria on the date as specified in the advertisement or if no such date is specified, such person has to be eligible as on the last date of filing the application. In the present case, it appears that no specific cut-off date has been specified in the rules in respect of eligibility of a candidate. Therefore, the cut- off date for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the candidates would be the last date for receipt of applications. In the present case, as on the last date of receipt of applications, admittedly, the petitioner was still pursuing the post-graduate medical course at Pune, thus, as on the cut-off date, the Page 8 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER petitioner was not eligible for admission in the post-graduate degree course. True it is, that by the time the academic year starts, the petitioner would have completed the previous course which she was pursuing and, therefore, would not be pursuing two courses concurrently. However, in terms of rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules a candidate who is currently engaged in P.G. Medical studies in any University or equivalent body is not eligible for admission to the post-graduate degree/diploma course. Since the rules do not specifically provide for a cut-off date for fulfilling the eligibility conditions, the eligibility criteria are required to be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority. (See Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519)
12. Another aspect of the matter is that the respondent University has construed rule 1.4 of the Admission Rules to mean that a candidate has to satisfy the eligibility requirements as on the last date for receipt of applications, under the circumstances, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Patna College v. K.S. Raman (supra), when the question of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of an University is involved, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari when it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient of the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. Thus, Page 9 of 10 C/SCA/8250/2014 ORDER when the above rule has been interpreted by the University to mean that a candidate has to satisfy the eligibility requirements as on the last date of receipt of applications, even if it were possible to take a different view, the High Court would be reluctant to interfere. Besides, as discussed hereinabove, it is a settled proposition of law that in the absence of specific cut-off date being mentioned for the purpose of fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the last date for receipt of applications has to be considered as the date on which the candidate has to satisfy the eligibility criteria. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by the University in not considering the petitioner to be eligible for admission in the post-graduate degree and diploma course in the colleges affiliated to the respondent University as on the last date for receipt of applications, the petitioner was pursuing a post graduate medical course at Pune.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 10 of 10