Bombay High Court
The Citizens' Action Committee, Nagpur ... vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 7 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989BOM178, AIR 1989 BOMBAY 178
JUDGMENT H.W. Dhabe, J.
1. At the stage of notice before admission, we have heard this matter at length fully as It was an urgent matter. Hence rule. Heard forthwith.
2. This is a writ petition in which the petitioners have claimed a writ against the respondents and particularly, the respondent 1 i.e. the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, for creating a Centre at Nagpur for all-India Pre-Medical/Pre Dental Entrance Examination, 1988, scheduled to be held on 22nd May 1988.
3. Briefly the facts are that for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, a as modified by the first decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dineshkumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, AIR 1985 SC 1095 which was its off-shoot, it was directed by the Supreme Court that the Central Government, the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India should frame a proper scheme for holding All India Entrance Examination for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. A scheme was accordingly framed which was considered and finally approved with certain modifications by the Supreme Court in its second decision in the case of Dr. Dineshkumar, AIR 1986 SC 1877. By the aforesaid Judgment, the Supreme Court directed that instead of 30% seats, 15% seats in admission to MBBS/BDS Courses should be filled in on the basis of All India merit. It also directed by the aforesaid judgment that the said All India Entrance Examination for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses should be held by the Central Board of Secondary Education i.e. the respondent 1.
5. It may be seen that as regards the examination Centres about which there is the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition, the Supreme Court has observed in para No.2 of its second decision in Dr. Dineskhumar's case, AIR 1986 SC 1877, relying upon its first decision in the said case AIR 1985 SC 1095, that the All India Entrance Examinations should be conducted in at least one Centre in each State and that having regard to the population, the number of students seeking admissions, and the extent the geographical area of the State, it would be desirable to have more than one Centre in some State of States, both in regard to the admission to the post-graduate course and also in regard to the admission to the MBBS course. In the same para, tit is further observed by the Supreme Court that the authorities concerned should evolve such a scheme for the All-India Entrance Examinations for MBBS.BDS courses as well as for the post graduate courses which would cause the least hardship and inconvenience to the student and at the same time implement its directions in Pradeep Jain's case (cited surpa).
6. Pursuant to the above guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, originally for the All India Entrance Examination for 1987-88 Session which was to be held as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the Second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, AIR 1986 SC 1877, the respondent I Board had fixed Nagpur as one of the centres for the said examination. However, after the said examination stood postponed because of certain difficulties envisaged in the holding of the same, the respondent I Board changed its policy about examination centres for holding entrance examination for the academic session 1988-89 and decided to hold the examinations in the capital of each State and each Union territory providing thus one centre in each State and in each Union territory. As already pointed out, the notification to that effect was issued in Jan. 1988,the date of examination notified being 22-5-1988 and the last date for submitting the application form for the examination after its extension being 15-3-198. It is pertinent to see that the Bulletin issued in Jan. 1988 giving the details of the aforesaid entrance examination to be held for 1988-89 academic session gives the names of the Centres where the said examination would be held. It also contains the application form which gives the choice of three preferences about the certres. It is also pertinent to see that any examinee can choose any centre in India for the examination. Although the said notification in which the examination certres are given was issued in Jan. 1988, it is material to notice that the instant writ petition is field on or about 16-3-1988 i.e. after the last date for receipt of application forms was over. It is thus in the context of the above facts and circumstances that the grievance of the petitioners about the examination centre at Nagpur needs to be considered.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the policy decision taken by the respondent I about holding the Entrance Examination in the capital of each State and each Union territory is erroneous because the respondent No. 1 failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its Second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, AIR 1986 SC 1877, referred to herein before. It is submitted that having regard to the population of the State of Maharashtra and the number of students seeking admissions from the Vidarbha area and also the fact that Bombay is far away from Nagpur, a Centre for the Entrance Examination should have been given to Nagpur as per the above guideline in that regard laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment. It is also urged that the respondent No. I did not follow another guideline laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, viz., that the scheme of examination should cause the least hardship and inconvenience to the students. It is pointed out that since Bombay is far away from Nagpur, it would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the students and in particular to poor students from this region in going to Bombay and appear for the examination in Bombay where there would be difficult problems for them to stay there till the examination is over. In particular, it is pointed out that the women students would find it very difficult to stay alone at such far away places for appearing at the Entrance Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the difficulties experienced by the students for appearing for the examination at far away places many of the students in this region did not at all apply for appearing at the said Entrance Examination and are, therefore, unfortunately deprived of competing for one of the seats to be filled in on the basis of the All India merit. The above submissions are highlighted on behalf of the petitioners particularly with reference to the grievances of the students in the region where the Medical Colleges catering to their needs established by the State Governments or other agencies are situated because they could have without such hardship and inconvenience claimed seats in these Colleges on the basis of their eligibility but for the filling up of 15 per cent, seats in these Colleges on the basis of All India Merit judged through the All India Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent 1.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent I has, however, countered the above submissions made on behalf of the respondent I Board by submitting that after considering all pros and cons of the matter, the respondent I Board has taken a policy decision that the centres for the Entrance Examination should be only in the capital of each State or each Union territory. He has further urged that the instant writ petition is highly belated and there are practical difficulties now in providing for a centre at Nagpur. He has also urged that if the Centre for examination is now awarded at Nagpur there would be demand for such centres in other States also and further that if a Centre is awarded at Nagpur now there would be a demand by the students who did not fill in the application forms for appearing at the Entrance Examination only because the Centre was not at nagpur, to allow them to submit their application forms for appearing for the examination which would dislocate the whole process of the Examination. The learned Counsel for the respondent I has also raised a basic objection that since the whole scheme of holding All India Entrance Examination is scrutinised and approved by the Supreme Court this Court should not entertain this writ petition which can appropriately be entertained by he Supreme Court only.
9. In considering the rival submissions, it is first necessary to see that the petitioners themselves have moved this Court after a great delay for claiming the examination Centre at Nagpur when the notification for examination itself was issued in January 1988 and when it was known from the bulletin and the application form enclosed therewith that Nagpur was not once of the Centres included therein. As already pointed out, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on or about 16-3-1988, i.e. after the last date for submitting the application forms was over. Although as a grievances it is put forward by the petitioners that many of the students could not apply for the examination because they are being held at far award places, it may be seen that if now the Centre were to be allowed at Nagpur, the grievance of the said students not be in a position to appear for the Examination as the last date for submitting the application forms is already over,. In face, the fixation of Centre at Nagpur now would thus be detrimental to their interest and they could make a legitimate grievance that if the Nagpur Centre had been announced in good time, they would have applied for appearing in the said Entrance Examination and therefore the fixation of such centre now would be arbitrary and violative of the equality clause under Art. 14 of the constitution unless the last date for making an application is suitably extended to enable them to submit their application forms for the examination.
10. The question therefore is whether it is possible for us to extend the last date for submission of the application forms to enable such students to submit their application forms before the date of the examination or whether to redress their grievance it is possible for us to postpone the date of the examination which is to be held on 22-5-1988. In considering this question, it is necessary to notice the last decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dineskhumar;s case . While considering certain objections, the Supreme Court has clarified and has in fact directed in para 5 of its aforesaid judgment that the examinations should be held between 16th May and 31st May and that the results should be notified between 15th and 20th June. The merit list of the candidates has to be prepared within one week from the publication of the results and three weeks' time is allowed to intervene before the actual admission start. According to the scheme as envisaged by the Supreme Court the whole process has to be completed by the end of August so that actual teaching can start from the beginning of September. Since these are the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it is not open to us to change the date of examination. It is not therefore possible for us to extend the date for submission of application forms because if it is extend it would not be possible to hold the examination between 15th May and 31st May. 1988 as directed by the Supreme Court.
10A. It may be seen that when this writ petition came earlier before is for admission, we had pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the whole scheme was considered and was approved by the Supreme Court, it would not be open to us to have any change in the said scheme as envisaged by the Supreme Court. it, it, therefore, clear that we have to work within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in considering the grievance of the petitioners about the allotment of Centre at Nagpur. The Supreme Court has directed that the examinations should be held between 16th May and 31st May and in fact the whole further programme is also given by the Supreme Court because of which, as already stated it is not possible for us to extent further the last date of submitting the application forms for the examination now. It the last date for appearing at the examination cannot be extended as already pointed out, it would cause great hardship to the students who did not apply because Nagpur was not one of the Centres for the examination.
11. the learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, drawn out attention to para 14 of the third decision in Dr. Dineshkumar;s case, and particularly the observations therein which are reproduced below;-
"We accordingly direct the authorities to hold the examination in the manner directed, in June 1988."
On the basis of the above observations, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the date of the examination can be postponed to June 1988 and, therefore, the date for submitting application forms can conveniently be further extended. It should be seen that although at the first singht it appears that June 1988 may refer to the date of the examination on further probe and particularly read in the light of the clarification and direction given by the Supreme Court in para 5 of its aforesaid judgment the expression "to hold the examination in the manner directed", and particularly the expression, "in the manner directed" according to us, would mean the whole process of holding the examination and declaration of its results which process is fully outlined by the Supreme Court in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment. At any rate, if there is any doubt or discrepancy in the observation of the Supreme Court in para 5 and para 14 of its aforesaid judgment the said discrepancy can be cleared or resolved by the Supreme Court itself and not by this Court. Apart from this, in our view, if the last date for submission of the application forms were to be extended it cannot be for the State of Maharashtra or the Vidarbha region of the State of Maharashtra only but would be on All India level which would dislocate the whole examination and admission process and it would not then be possible to hold the examination even in June 1988 as it urged by the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to extend the last date of submitting application forms in which case as already pointed out it would cause great injustice to the students who did not apply because Nagpur was not one of centres for the examination.
12. there are also other practical difficulties which are brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 through the note submitted before us today. In para 1 of the said note, it is pointed out what the steps are which the respondent I has to undertake in conducting these examination at various Centres. It is stated that all the steps up to issuing of the roll numbers and admission cards are underway and that the printed papers have already been dispatched to the Centres concerned. It is also pointed out that if now Nagpur was to be notified as a Centre then fresh options would have to be given to all the students for the Centre at Nagpur which would at least take after giving such options some time would also be necessary for issuing fresh admission cards. Apart from this, it is pointed out that there would be difficulty in sending printed papers to Nagpur in time. It is also submitted that if there are additional or excess papers in any Centre due to sending of papers at Nagpur, it would not be conducive to fair conduct of the examination. Besides these, other difficulties such as of requisitioning examination halls at Nagpur, appointment of invigilators and Centre Superintendent in such a short time are also highlighted on behalf of the respondent 1. Taking into consideration these practical difficulties also we do not think that it will be possible now to fix Nagpur as Centre for holding the Entrance Examination.
13. It may be seen that the conduct of an examination is an administration matter and we cannot visualise all the difficulties which the respondent No. I may be required to face in fixing the Centre now at Nagpur particularly when the Entrance Examination is on All India level. Moreover, as pointed out above, the respondent No. 1 as well as this Court has to Act within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court and it is not therefore possible to alter the examination schedule except with the leave of the Supreme Court. in view of these facts and circumstances, the delay in moving this Court is fatal to the instant writ petition.
14. It may however, be observed that the grievance made by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is genuine and the respondent I has not in determining Centres for examination applied its mind to all the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in para 2 of its second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case AIR 1986 SC 1877. As pointed out above, as per the above decision of the Supreme Court, the population of the State, the extent of its geographicarea, the number of students seeking admission, hardship and inconvenience to the students are the factors which the respondents 1 ought to have taken into consideration before merely taking a policy decision that the Centre would be in the capital of each State and the Union territory only. In fact, when the Entrance Examination was proposed to be held in 1987-88 the above factors, as it appears have been taken into consideration and a Centre was allotted at Nagpur besides many others for the said examination. It is not known why for the ensuing examination of 1988-89 Nagpur is dropped as a centre and why a policy decision is taken to restrict the Centres to the capital of each State only.
15. The learned Counsel for the respondent I has, however, fairly stated before us that all these aspects and difficulties will be taken into consideration while holding the next examination in 1989. He has also stated before us that this is a first examination and therefore an experiment and that by reason of the experience gained in conducting the present examination the respondent I would try to remove the difficulties while holding the next examination in 1989. For the next session, it would also be open to the petitioners to make a proper representation to the respondent I Board for providing a Centre at Nagpur which can be sympathetically considered by it.
16. With these observations, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Petition dismissed.