Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ms S.Satya Manisha, ... vs 1.Dr. N.T.R. University Of Health ... on 9 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 HYD 129
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Writ Petition No.6073 of 2018
09-4-2018
Ms S.Satya Manisha, D/o.S.Satyanarayana, Aged 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.D.No.5-168, Nadakundura (V), Karpa (M), E.G. Distr
1.Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. Dr. N.T.R. Universi
Rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Rep. by its Princi
Counsel for Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Kartik
Counsel for Respondents 1&2: Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Writ Petition No.6073 of 2018
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging the cancellation of admission granted to her into
MBBS Course during the Academic Year 2015-16.
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Kartik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the University.
3. The petitioner studied up to 10th standard in a school
known as St. Josephs Convent School at Kakinada. She did
her Intermediate (+2) at Vijayawada. After completion of
Intermediate, the petitioner applied for EAMCET-2015 and
she secured a score of 80.8015 with a rank of 3896.
The petitioner belongs to the BC-D Community.
4. In the counselling held on 09-8-2015, the petitioner
was allotted to the 3rd respondent-College for admission to the
MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2015-16 and the
petitioner joined the college on 14-9-2015.
5. In April 2016, the 2nd respondent-University sent
a communication to the District Educational Officer, Kurnool,
calling upon him to verify whether the petitioner studied in
Good Shepherd EMH School, Nandyal, from 6th standard to
9th standard during the period 2006-2010. This clarification
was sought on the basis that the place where the petitioner
actually studied up to 10th standard viz., Kakinada came
within the Andhra University Area and that she produced
a bogus certificate as though she studied in Nandyal, Kurnool
District coming within Sri Venkateswara University area and
got admission to the 3rd respondent-College on the basis of
the bogus Study Certificate.
6. In response to the letter dated 20-4-2016 issued by
the Registrar of the University, the District Educational
Officer instructed the Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal,
to make an enquiry and to submit a report. The Deputy
Educational Officer, Nandyal, contacted Good Shepherd EMH
School, Nandyal and verified the genuineness of the Study
Certificate containing information as though the petitioner
studied from 6th standard to 9th standard in Nandyal during
the period 2006-2010. The school confirmed that the
petitioner was not a student of that school. Therefore, the
Deputy Educational Officer, Nandyal, submitted a report
dated 14-6-2016, on the basis of which the District
Educational Officer, Kurnool, wrote a letter dated 09-7-2016
to the 2nd respondent informing him that the Study Certificate
was not genuine.
7. On the basis of the said communication dated
09-7-2016 of the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, the
Vice Chancellor of the University passed an order dated
19-7-2016 placing the petitioner under suspension from
pursuing the MBBS Course until further orders. The said
order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by way
of a writ petition in W.P.No.24644 of 2016. After ordering
notice in the writ petition on 26-7-2016, this Court passed
an interim order on 09-8-2016 permitting the petitioner to
appear for the examination. The interim order passed by this
Court was to the following effect:
Pending the writ petition challenging an order of
suspension passed against her, the petitioner has come up
with these miscellaneous petitions seeking inter alia,
(1) suspension of the order of suspension; (2) a direction to
allow her to write the examinations scheduled to be held
from 09.08.2016.
Heard Mr. BS. Kartik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent.
The ground on which the petitioner, who was
undergoing the 1st year MBBS course, has been placed
under suspension was that though she actually belonged to
Andhra University local area, she produced a fabricated
study certificate, as though she belonged to Sree
Venkateswara University local area and gained admission
into the 1st year of MBBS Course. The conclusion that the
petitioner fabricated a document with regard to her local
area status and gained admission has been reached on the
basis of the findings of a Committee constituted for
verification of the original certificates.
A careful look at the proceedings of the Committee
dated 14.03.2016 would show that after examining the
cases of about 10 candidates including that of the writ
petitioner herein, the Committee constituted for the
purpose, requested the University to examine the study
certificates produced by the candidates by referring them to
the Director of School Education. Accordingly, the study
certificate allegedly produced by the petitioner was referred
to the Director of School Education. Thereafter, the
University also wrote a letter dated 20.04.2016 to the
District Educational Officer, Kurnool, directing him to verify
whether the school from which the petitioner allegedly
produced a study certificate, viz., Good Shepherd EM High
School, Nandyal, Kurnool District, is in existence or not and
whether the study certificates are genuine or not. The
District Educational Officer has sent a reply after enquiry,
on 9.07.2016, stating that the study certificate indicating
that the writ petitioner studied from VI class to IX class in
Good Shepherd EM High School, was not genuine.
But the contention of the writ petitioner is that she
never produced the study certificate in question and that
she produced only a study certificate to the effect that she
studied from Class-I to Class-X only in St Josephs Convent
School, Kakinada.
In the light of such a stand taken by the writ
petitioner that she never produced the study certificate,
which is in dispute, it has to be seen whether benefit of
doubt at this stage should be given to the petitioner or not .
There are two things that would persuade us to give
the benefit of doubt for the present to the petitioner. The
first is that the Committee constituted by the university for
verification of certificates, has conducted only a preliminary
enquiry and not a detailed enquiry giving an opportunity to
the petitioner. That stage has not yet been reached.
The second reason is that on the date of counselling,
viz., 9.08.2015, the petitioner appears to have claimed local
status only in Andhra University area. The hall ticket
issued for APEAMCET-2015 indicating the date of
examination as 08.05.2015 shows that the local status
claimed by the petitioner was only Andhra University. The
receipt for the registration at the time of counselling on
09.08.2015, issued at 10.18 am., also contains the local
area status only as Andhra University. But the
acknowledgement for receipt of certificates issued in a
printed format at 11.08 am., indicates the local area status
as Sree Venkateswara University. Therefore, what happened
between 10.18 am., and 11.08 am., remains a mystery and
the question as to whether the Convenor or the officers who
scrutinized the applications at the counselling centre
performed their tasks truthfully, looms large.
Therefore, for the above two reasons, we give benefit
of doubt to the petitioner for the present to enable her to
write the examination for the 1st year. The respondent shall
permit the petitioner to take the examination but the
results of the examination shall be withheld until further
orders. We have passed this order on the premise that the
petitioner has requisite attendance for writing the
examination.
Post after two weeks. The university shall produce all
the records relating to the petitioner, produced at the time
of counselling.
8. Thereafter, the writ petition W.P.No.24644 of 2016
itself was disposed of by a final order dated 27-3-2017.
Paragraphs-6 to 8 of the judgment dated 27-3-2017 passed in
W.P.No.24644 of 2016 read as follows:
6. It is seen from the impugned order that the
impugned order was supposed to be a temporary measure.
The impugned order states that the petitioner is suspended
from pursuing the course of study until further orders.
A period of nearly 10 months has passed from the date of
the interim order.
7. Though it is claimed that a police complaint was
also lodged, no FIR has been registered and as
a consequence there are no criminal proceedings pending.
In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that
the suspension order cannot continue without any end.
Obviously, the impugned order dated 19-7-2016, was
passed without putting the petitioner on notice and without
affording any opportunity. The University has not chosen to
put the petitioner on notice and give an opportunity,
probably on account of the fact that the suspension was
intended to be only a temporary affair. But this temporary
suspension has now prolonged for nearly 10 months.
8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the petitioner may be
permitted to pursue the course of study, without prejudice
to the right of the respondents to proceed in accordance
with law. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
9. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar passed
a final order dated 02-6-2017 cancelling the admission
granted to the petitioner during the Academic Year 2015-16.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a 2nd writ
petition in W.P.No.29766 of 2017. The said writ petition was
allowed by this Court by an order dated 11-9-2017 on the
short ground that the same had been passed in utter violation
of the principles of natural justice. Paragraphs-4 to 6 of the
order passed on 11-9-2017 in W.P.No.29766 of 2017 read as
follows:
4. Pursuant to the liberty, the impugned order of
cancellation of admission has been passed. The impugned
order comprises of four paragraphs. The first two
paragraphs contain the past history. The last paragraph
contains the operative portion of the order. The third
paragraph, which contains the reasons, reads as follows:
In view of the same, the University has examined
your explanation and also material (report of the District
Educational Officer, Kurnool and your fake/bogus study
certificate) on record, the University treats that you have
furnished fake/bogus study certificate and also mislead the
University at the time of admission into MBBS course for the
academic year 2015-16 at PES Institute of Medical Sciences,
Kuppam.
5. It is obvious from the above paragraph that
an enquiry, where witnesses are examined, documents are
marked, and witnesses are allowed to be cross-examined,
was not conducted before the impugned order was passed.
Thus, there has been a violation of the principles of natural
justice.
6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed,
the impugned order is set aside, and the matter remanded
back. The respondents may conduct a full-fledged enquiry,
after giving opportunities to the petitioner, and then pass
final orders.
10. Thereafter, the University appointed one
Dr. Sasank, Principal of Siddhartha Medical College,
Vijayawada, as an enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer
conducted an enquiry, examined witnesses and eventually
came to the conclusion that the petitioner produced two
Study Certificates, one of 10th Class and one of Classes 6 to 9
which were proved to be bogus and that she could not have
gained admission, but for the bogus certificates.
11. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Vice
Chancellor passed a fresh order dated 11-01-2018 cancelling
the admission granted to the petitioner. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner has come back to this Court with the
above writ petition, which is the 3rd writ petition in
succession. In other words, the future of the petitioner is
actually tossed between Law and Medicine in the past nearly
two years.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
forcefully contended that the enquiry report was completely
perverse and that without connecting the petitioner to the
suspicious Study Certificate on record, the petitioners future
has been annihilated.
13. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that
a criminal complaint has also been registered against the
petitioner for producing a bogus Study Certificate and
securing admission to the MBBS Course. Therefore, we are
obliged to tread very cautiously on a delicate path, lest the
entire future of a reasonably bright young girl of 20 years
would get jeopardised.
14. If we carefully analyse the pleadings on hand, it is
seen that there is no dispute from the petitioner about the
following facts viz.,
(i) that she studied from Classes 1 to 10 at Kakinada in
St. Josephs Convent School,
(ii) that as a consequence, she belonged to the Andhra
University Area (AU Area),
(iii) that she secured a score of 80.8015 and a rank of
3896 in EAMCET-2015,
(iv) that she belongs to the BC-D Community and
(v) that she gained admission into a college that falls
within Sri Venkateswara University Area (SVU Area).
15. What follows out of the above facts as admitted by
the petitioner in her own Affidavit, is that the petitioner could
have secured admission either under the 85% quota reserved
for local candidates in the Andhra University Area or under
the 15% quota available for all candidates in the SVU Area
irrespective of the local area to which the petitioner belonged.
The positive case of the University, about which the petitioner
has no dispute, is that the last candidate belonging to BC-D
Community who secured admission in the Andhra University
Area had secured a rank of 3181. Therefore, the petitioner
could not have gained admission to a college located within
the AU Area under the 85% quota reserved for local
candidates of that area, in terms of the Presidential Order,
1974 issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution. Since
she is a local candidate of AU Area even on her own
admission, she could not have secured admission under the
15% quota thrown open to candidates of all areas in the AU
Area, as the cut-off for Open Category is higher. Actually the
last candidate belonging to BC-D Community who secured
admission as a non-local in the AU Area had secured the
rank 2268. Therefore, there can be no dispute about the fact
that the petitioner could not have secured admission either as
a local candidate or as a non-local candidate in any of the
colleges located within the AU Area, but for the study
certificate in question.
16. That takes us to the next question as to whether the
petitioner could have secured admission as a non-local
candidate available for Open Category under the 15% quota
in SVU Area. It is not the case of the petitioner that the last of
the candidates belonging to BC-D Community who secured
admission as a non-local in SVU Area within the 15% quota
available for Open Categories, had secured a lower rank.
Therefore, the petitioner did not secure and could not have
secured admission under the 15% quota available for non-
locals in SVU Area. If that be so, the controversy gets reduced
only to one last question viz., as to how the petitioner secured
admission under the 85% quota available for local candidates
in SVU Area. According to the respondents, the answer to this
last question lies in the Study Certificate available with them
on record, to the effect as though the petitioner studied in
Good Shepherd EMH School, Nandyal and that but for this
Certificate, the petitioner could not have been allotted a seat
in SVU Area.
17. The petitioner feigns ignorance of the Study
Certificate relied upon by the respondents. According to the
petitioner, she produced a Study Certificate that showed her
to have studied up to 10th standard in St. Josephs Convent
School at Kakinada. In other words, it is a case of total denial
by the petitioner, of the production of any bogus certificate.
18. As we have pointed out at the threshold, we do not
wish to get into the question whether the petitioner actually
produced a bogus Study Certificate and gained admission.
If we go into it and record a finding, the fate of the petitioner
in the criminal case will get completely sealed and we do not
wish to do that. Let us proceed on the presumption, by giving
the benefit of doubt to the petitioner that she did not produce
a bogus certificate and gained admission.
19. But even then, the fact remains that the petitioner
could not have gained admission to the 3rd respondent-
College, with the certificates that she produced and the score
and rank that she had secured. The admission granted to the
petitioner to the 3rd respondent-College, in any case, cannot
be sustained as she did not come within the cut-off for
admission in SVU Area. Therefore, the cancellation of her
admission cannot really be found fault with.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the impugned order was not passed on the basis that the
admission granted to the petitioner was erroneous. It is his
contention that even if the admission granted to the petitioner
was erroneous, the petitioner was not at fault and that
therefore her admission cannot be cancelled.
21. But we are not impressed with the said argument.
Rightly or wrongly, the Presidential Order, 1974 issued in
exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of
Article 371-D of the Constitution has created a reservation for
local candidates in the three local areas viz., Osmania
University Area (OU Area), Andhra University Area (AU Area)
and Sri Venkateswara University Area (SVU Area). This
reservation on the basis of domicile, is notwithstanding
anything contained in any other part of the Constitution
including Articles 14 and 16. Insofar as the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are concerned, this
reservation on the basis of domicile is akin to the reservation
for socially Backward Classes. Therefore, if somebody had
secured admission to an educational course, within the quota
reserved for a particular category, despite not being entitled,
he or she will have to forgo the same. In the case on hand, the
petitioner could not have secured admission to the
3rd respondent-College coming within SVU Area. Therefore,
she is not entitled to retain the benefit that was either
unlawfully gained by her or erroneously conferred upon her.
Therefore, we have no alternative except to dismiss the writ
petition, even on admitted facts that the petitioner could not
have got admission to the 3rd respondent-College.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
_______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J. 09th April, 2018.