Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sourabh Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. Nos.20932/2018; 2125/2018; 14085/2018;
17906/2018; 18170/2018; 19200/2018; 21804/2018
JABALPUR
05.03.2019
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Ms. Nain Jyoti Noriya
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned Addl. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 6.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Ghanshyam Burman learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Shri Satish Verma learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5.
Shri S. R. Tamrakar learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6/AFRC submits that he has filed a status report on behalf of the Committee in W.P. No. 20932/2018, wherein the Committee has stated that on account of the fact that due to non-availability of some of the members of the respondent/private institutions and others, the Committee has not been able to take a decision. It is also stated that the Committee being constituted of Departmental Heads holding Secretary or the Director level posts, meeting has to be convened on the availability of the members of the Committee and as such a decision in the matter has not been taken till date.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. Nos.20932/2018; 2125/2018; 14085/2018; 17906/2018; 18170/2018; 19200/2018; 21804/2018 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 Medical Science University as well as the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State point out that the admission relates to the Session 2016-17. They have also placed before this Court the order dated 02.09.2016 of the Committee wherein it had informed all the Colleges that the admission to the courses have to be made only through the Common Entrance Examination and a Counseling conducted by the Medical Education Department in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2007').
The learned counsel for the respondent University, in addition, has also filed a reply in various connected petitions specifically in WP No.19200/2018 and along with that they have also filed a letter issued by the Committee dated 04.05.2018 stating that the entire responsibility for looking into the illegalities in the admissions involved in the present petitions lies with the Director, Medical Education, in response to a letter issued by the Director, Medical Education dated 27.04.2018 on the basis of which it is pointed out that the matter in respect of examination and validity of the admissions for the year 2016-2017 BDS Courses has been oscillating between the two authorities and is pending before the Committee since the last two years 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. Nos.20932/2018; 2125/2018; 14085/2018; 17906/2018; 18170/2018; 19200/2018; 21804/2018 or more. It is also pointed out that the respondent- AFRC has filed an application seeking extension of time to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 10.08.2018 issued in W.P. No. 895/2018 directing the Committee to complete the enquiry and take a decision thereon within a period of three months and this Court on the application of AFRC has extended the period granted to the Committee to complete the process upto 09.02.2019 which is over.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie it appears that the Committee is, for no good reason, delaying taking of a decision in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.895/2018. The Committee, since the very beginning has been constituted of named members and the excuse that they are Departmental Heads and Director Level Officers is no ground to seek time for not complying with the directions issued by this Court. Moreso, as there is a specific provision contained in Section 4 of the Act of 2007, regarding forum, etc. which does not prohibit or prevent the Committee from proceeding ahead in the matters pending before them even in the absence of any members. It is also observed that the time as extended by this Court up to 09.02.2019 has also expired.
4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. Nos.20932/2018; 2125/2018; 14085/2018; 17906/2018; 18170/2018; 19200/2018; 21804/2018 At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the Committee prays for and is granted four weeks time to comply with the directions issued by this Court and to take necessary action in this regard.
It is made clear that in case the direction issued by this Court is not complied with and the necessary decision is not taken by the Committee, the learned counsel shall also give the names of the members of the Committee who are responsible for not complying with the directions of this Court so that further action in this regard can be taken.
The learned counsel appearing for the private Colleges before this Court submits that they have also filed a reply before the Committee.
Be that as it may, in case the private College fails to respond to the notices issues by the Committee or file its reply before the Committee, the Committee would be at liberty to proceed against the private colleges in accordance with law and the notices given in this regard and their knowledge of the same to the private colleges/institutions shall be considered as sufficient notices.
As prayed, list after four weeks.
C.C., today.
( R. S. JHA ) ( SANJAY DWIVEDI )
JUDGE JUDGE
priya.p
Digitally signed by Priyanka
Pithawe
Date: 2019.03.11 15:06:50
+05'30'