Delhi High Court
Khalid Imam vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st September, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) No. 8347/2015 & CM No.17685/2015 (for stay)
KHALID IMAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Mr. Matloob
Alam & Ms. Mehak Tanwar, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Raj Kumar Dahiya, Adv. for
R-1 to 3.
Mr. Amit Bansal, Ms. Seema Dolo
and Mr. Akhil Kumar Kulshrestha,
Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petitioner appeared in the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT)
conducted by the respondent no.4 Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) for admission to MBBS course under the All India Quota Seats in
various medical colleges across the country and has secured All India rank of
4198 in the said test.
2. As per the "Guidelines (User Manual) for the Candidates for Online
Registration and Choice Filling" published by the respondent no.4 CBSE,
the candidates declared eligible / qualified for participation in the All India
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 1 of 8
Quota counselling (as per the result of the said test) were required to, during
the "registration and choice filling period", register through internet in the
manner provided therein and after successful registration submit / log in their
choices of medical colleges. The "registration and choice filling period" was
from 19th to 21st August, 2015 and the process of seat allotment was to begin
on 22nd August, 2015 and the result of the round one of seat allotment to be
declared on 23rd August, 2015 and the candidates allotted colleges in the first
round were to report for admission to the allotted medical college between
24th to 27th August, 2015.
3. This petition was filed on 28th August, 2015 contending that the
petitioner, though registered online but inadvertently failed to fill up / long in
the choices of medical college and owing whereto, in the process of seat
allotment, not allotted a seat though candidates with rank much below the
rank of the petitioner were allocated seats. The petitioner seeks mandamus
for allotment of a seat in any medical college as per his rank and / or a
direction for including his name in the second round of seat allotment to
commence on 1st September, 2015.
4. The petition came up first before this Court yesterday on 31st August,
2015, when notice thereof was issued to the respondents.
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 2 of 8
5. The counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 Union of India (UOI),
Directorate General of Health Services and Medical Counselling Committee
has today in Court handed over a copy of the letter dated 31 st August, 2015
of the respondent no.2 Directorate General of Health Services, Medical
Examination Cell, to the counsel stating as under:-
"So far as DGHS/MOHFW/MCC (Respondent
No.1, 3 and 4) is concerned in the matter, it is
stated that as per the directions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No.298, 299,
305 and 325 of 2015-Tanvi Sarwal Vs. CBSE and
ors., the Schedule for online counselling
(Allotment Process) for All India Quota Under
Graduate (MBBS/BDS) seats for the year 2015
was uploaded on the website of Medical
Counselling Committee (MCC) of Directorate
General of Health Services for the information /
knowledge/benefits of the candidates appearing in
online counselling. Copy of Time Schedule is
annexed here to ANNEXURE-1.
The main counselling Registration and
Choice filling and locking by the candidates was
from 19.08.2015 to 21.08.2015 up to 11.59 P.M.
as per Schedule mentioned on the website.
In case a candidate did not register or
choice filling and locking within prescribed period
as mentioned in Schedule is not eligible for online
allotment process of All India Under Graduate
Quota seats (15%) in terms of All India Quota
Scheme as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
The Petitioner as per Petition registered but
did not fill up choice within stipulated time. The
answering Respondent have no authority to allow
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 3 of 8
the Petitioner to allotted the online counselling for
allotment of MBBS/BDS seat under 15% all India
Quota because the Petitioner did not fill up
choices as per time Schedule uploaded on MCC's
website (www.mcc.nic.in).
It is also worth mentioning that the entire
date available in NIC Server has been freezed and
on the basis of such data, first round of
Counselling is already completed on 27/08/2015.
The process of second round of allotment is
already going on.
As such there is no provision in software to
incorporate petitioner choices for allotment at this
point of time.
In view of the above you are requested to
please appear before Hon'ble High Court on
01.09.2015 and apprise about the facts on behalf
of Respondents No.1,3 and 4
(MOHFW/DGHS/MCC) and protect the interest of
the Government and also keep this Directorate
informed about the development of the case."
The counsel states that the counselling is online and the petitioner
having not, within the prescribed time, filled / logged in his choice of
medical colleges, cannot participate in online counselling and the system
automatically locked after the time prescribed for registration and choice
filling and now the petitioner cannot be technically permitted to participate
in the second round of counselling / seat allotment underway today i.e. 1 st
September, 2015 and the result whereof is to be published tomorrow i.e. 2nd
September, 2015.
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 4 of 8
6. I may in this regard notice that, the third and last round of counselling
/ seat allotment is to happen on 9th September, 2015.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has sought to refer to the following
Clauses of the Guidelines (User Manual) aforesaid:-
"The above data submitted by candidate is verified against
the candidate's detail provided by the Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE). If it matches, then,
Candidate would be allowed access for updating of the
candidate's profile along with selection of individual
password. In case of any mismatch, the candidate would
not be allowed to access the online counselling website. In
case of genuine candidates, who could not register for the
online counselling, the candidates could approach
personally, to nearby Help Centers (Participating
Government Medical / Dental College) or MCC Control
Room for recovery of the correct information on
production of individual identity and other credentials
during registration period only."
"9. Choice Locking & Printing of locked choices
Locking of choices is mandatory for the processing of
choices submitted by the candidate. After completion of
the choice submission to ones satisfaction candidate can
lock her / her choices during choice locking period, dates
of which are mentioned in Counselling Schedule. By
clicking the Choice Lock Button and confirming the same,
the choices could be locked. Choices once locked can't
be unlocked. Therefore the candidates are advised to
exercise choice carefully, as the choices above the
allotted choice will be processed in second round. In case
candidate fails to lock choices, choices filled in by the
candidate will be automatically locked at 5:00 PM of last
date of locking."
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 5 of 8
and has contended that the same permit allowing participation of the
petitioner in the process of counselling / seat allotment even though the
petitioner had not filled up the choices and that the same prescribe allocation
of medical college as per its merit and as per the rank of the petitioner, even
without the petitioner filling up / logging in his choices.
8. The aforesaid, is clearly in misconstruction of the language of the
Clauses aforesaid. The same nowhere permit of such interpretation. While
the first of the aforesaid two Clauses provides for seeking assistance in
registration for online counselling, only "during the registration period"
prescribed and the second is with respect to automatic locking of choices
filled up, even if the candidate himself / herself had failed to lock the
choices made / filled up / logged in, as was required to do. Neither of the
aforesaid Clauses permit the inclusion in seat allotment of the candidate who
has not filled up / logged in the choice of medical college, after the system
has automatically locked and / or for allocation of medical college as per
rank. The User Manual clearly required the petitioner to, post registration,
fill up / log in the choices of medical college, to be eligible for seat allotment
during the online counselling.
9. Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 6 of 8
petitioner hails from District Siwan in Bihar and is not well-versed in login
and in computerised counselling.
10. However that is not the case pleaded. The petitioner, as per his
petition, was merely inadvertent in not filling up his choices.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has also sought to invoke the plea of
"merit ought to prevail". It is contended that the candidates with All India
rank as low as 77000 have been allocated a seat and the petitioner with a
rank of 4198 should not be made to lose a year.
12. Our Courts have been very frequently bending the Rules in the name
of preventing injustice. However, computerised counselling having been
introduced to provide a transparent, tamper and tool proof admission
process, to me it appears that if this Court were to continue passing
directions / orders, interfering therewith, the same would obviate the whole
purpose of introducing mechanised foolproof system of seat allotment and
would not sub-serve the larger public interest.
13. The petitioner, who is an aspirant for admission to prestigious, ardous
course of MBBS, requiring him to exercise care to the utmost, ought to have
gone through the User Manual carefully and followed the same. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he was prevented from filling up the choices for
W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 7 of 8
any reasons beyond his control or for any circumstance which may be
described as act of God.
14. Moreover, this Court cannot in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India give a direction in contravention of the rules of
admission and cannot be generous or liberal in issuing directions to
authorities to violate their own rules and regulations. Reference in this
regard may be made to the host of case law referred to in the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Amit Kumar Vs. University of Delhi
MANU/DE/3046/2014.
15. I am also of the opinion that to ensure proper governance, it has
become necessary to abide by the Rules and to minimise the variation, in the
name of doing justice, therefrom.
16. I am therefore constrained to hold that no relief can be granted to the
petitioner.
Dismissed.
No costs.
Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2015/„pp‟.. W.P.(C) No.8347/20915 Page 8 of 8