Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Vanija Gautam vs Raj. Ayurvedic University Jod. &Anr on 17 February, 2009
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
Dr. Vanija Gautam
Vs.
Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Another
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.204/2009)
DATE OF ORDER : February 17, 2009.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
____________________________________
Mr. Rakesh Arora for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat for the respondent(s).
BY THE COURT :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing appropriate writ or direction to the respondents for providing admission to the petitioner in the M.D. (Homoeopathy) for the Session 2009, as per her meritorious marks in the B.H.M.S. According to facts of the case, the petitioner acquired the degree of Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicines & Surgery in the year 2007 in first attempt with 61.32% marks. Thereafter, the petitioner joined Internship and completed the internship vide Certificate dated 30.09.2008. The petitioner got herself registered with the Rajasthan Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, Jaipur in the State register of Homoeopathy practitioners. She 2 is thus possessing all the requisite qualification for admission to the course of Doctor of Medicine in Homoeopathy. In view of her qualification, the petitioner applied for admission to the court of M.D. (Homoeopathy) in respondent No.2 College. Respondent No.2 College is affiliated to respondent No.1, which issued the prospectus for admission in M.D. (Homoeopathy).
As [per rules for admission enumerated in the prospectus, the selection for admission is to be made strictly on the basis of merit and there is provision for granting preference to certain candidates. Para 4 of the admission rules published in the prospectus runs as under :
"4.Selections will be made strictly on basis of merit, the preference will be given to the candidates.
(i) Who have passed all the Four Examination of BHMS in First Attempt, and.
(ii)Who have worked in rural areas for at least two years."
The case of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of rules for admission published by the respondent department, admissions were to be given solely on the basis of merit and, admittedly, the petitioner acquired the said qualification with 61.32% marks in first attempt; but, unfortunately she was denied admission by the respondents while admitting other less meritorious persons in the course. Therefore, a representation was filed by the petitioner to the University which she has placed on record as Annex.-6 to the writ petition. 3
After denial of admission, the petitioner sought information from the respondents under the Right to Information Act and, for the same, Annex.-7 was filed by the petitioner to the Registrar of the University, so also, to the respondent College where she filed application for granting admission. The respondent College gave reply to the petitioner, which is Annexure-9 dated 2.1.2009 in which, following assertion is made by the college :
"आप द र च ह गय सचन कम नस र पस ह :-
०१ Prospectus Session 2009, म Part II क ब न ३ म उल#ख%
चयन सममत क गठन व*शव*द #य क तनयम- क अन ग/ ह।
०२ कम स2खय २ ए*2 ३ : सममत न चयन ह मररट क तनर /रण क म#ए
तनमन म प ण; अपन ए :
अ) B.H.M.S. क<स/ क स ढ च र *र? क क# प प 2क- क पत श ।
) B.H.M.S. क<स/ क Bर न व*रय* र कक न पय स #ग।
स) Extra curricular activities क व**रण थ communication
skills & body language.
) Interview म स2 2धर व*रय कF ज नक र ए*2 memory recall
capacity कF ज नक र प प करन ।
०४ क<ई परर* न
/ नह 2 ककय गय ।
०५ प*/ कF भ 2त इस *र/ भ उपर<क तनयम- क अनस र प*श पककय पण/
कF गय ।
०६ स म नय शण क अभय थQय- कF मररट म#सट म आपक 20 * 2 थ
प क सच म आठ* 2 सथ न थ ए*2 आपक< क# 24.6 अ2क प प हए।
०७ स म नय शण कF मररट म#सट म 6 अभयथQ ऐस हU जजनक B.H.M.S.
म आपस कम अ2क थ ककन व*रय- कF *र य ए*2 चयन पककय क
इन सभ अभयथQय- न आपस उचच र सथ न प प ककय ।
०८ ह ,2 मररट म#सट क अनम< न गठठ सममत द र ककय गय थ *
उसकF पत व*शव*द #य क< पवर कर गय थ ।
०९ चयतन अभय थQय- कF सच मय प क सच क< उस ठ न क #ज क
न<ठटस <;/ पर #ग ठ य गय थ । प*/ कF भ 2त इस *र/ भ सच
4
क पक शन ककस भ सम च र पत म नह 2 कर* य गय थ ।"
It is very strange that a totally baseless and arbitrary criteria was adopted by the respondent College for granting admission ignoring the merit of the candidates. In this case, when the petitioner was denied admission, she preferred this writ petition.
In pursuance of the notices issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondent College where the petitioner filed application for admission. In the reply, the respondents have stated in para 4 that Dr. Ruchitra Sharma, Dr. Ruchi Mehta and Dr. Tushar Purohit were having lesser marks than the petitioner but they did better in the interview and as such, in the overall aggregate, they were higher in the merit than the petitioner, therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that less meritorious persons were granted admission. It is also contended in the reply that admissions were given on the basis of marks, attempts, extra performance, interview etc. For substantiating the said contention, the respondent College has annexed result-sheet of admission, in which, marks were given under different heads and, thereafter, merit has been assessed.
For the year 2009, name of the petitioner is appearing at S.No.19 and she has been awarded 5 marks in the interview and Dr. Ruchi Mehta has been awarded 17 marks out of 20. Likewise, Dr. Ruchitra Sharma, whose name is at S.No.13, is less meritorious in B.H.M.S. Degree, but she was awarded 16 marks out of 20 in the interview; meaning thereby, without there being any provision in the rules, the respondents have 5 adopted criteria in which 20 marks were prescribed for interview whereas it is not provided in the prospectus that any criteria for assessing merit will be adopted by the respondents. In my opinion, after perusal of the reply filed by the respondent College and relevant rules in para 4 of the prospectus, it is clear that it is nowhere provided that any selection criteria will be fixed for assessing merit. The words used are, " Selections will be made strictly on basis of merit", therefore, the respondents have obviously adopted arbitrary and illegal practice while deviating from the provisions and fixing 20 marks for interview, though, knowing it well that no such criteria is there in the rules. In the rules, there is provision that selection will be made strictly on the basis of merit. It is not open to the respondents to fix any other criteria arbitrarily brushing aside the actual merit of the candidate achieved in the eligibility qualification nor there is any such provision. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents is totally arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal. The respondents are under obligation to act fairly and give admission strictly in accordance with merit and, for this purpose, in no manner, the actual merit of the candidate can be lost sight of. The practice adopted by the respondents is contrary to fair play and prudence and cannot be sustained in the eye of law because it has resulted into illegal denial of admission to the petitioner because obviously the petitioner is higher in marks than the three aforesaid persons who have been granted admission in preference to the petitioner.
6
Since less meritorious candidates than the petitioner have been granted admission by respondent No.2, at this stage, in my considered opinion, without disturbing the admissions already granted to others, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to provide admission to the petitioner forthwith in M.D. (Homoeopathy) - 2009 session on the basis of marks obtained by her in the Degree and the petitioner shall be allowed to pursue her studies in M.D. (Homoeopathy). Ordered accordingly.
In the terms indicated above, this writ petition is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.