Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poonam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2015
1
W.P. No. 9483/2014.
(Poonam Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & another)
02/09/2015 .
Shri Vivek Rusia learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
The petitioner prayed a writ of mandamus in her favour to the effect that she be declared eligible in regard to admission in MBBS Course in pursuance to her selection in the entrance examination and the age of the petitioner be treated as valid for the purpose of selection in the Course.
2. The respondents issued information bulletin in regard to All India Premedical/ Predental Entrance Test for 2014 for the purpose of conducting entrance examination for MBBS and BDS courses for all India quota seats. In accordance with clause 9.2 of the bulletin, the upper age limit in regard to eligibility for admission in seats under the control of participating States would be upper age limit as per the rules of respective States. The relevant provision of Clause 9.2(c) reads as under:-
"9.2(c) The upper age limit for candidates seeking admission under seats in the control of participating States/ Universities/ institutions shall be as per their rules and regulations." 2
W.P. No. 9483/2014.
3. The petitioner submitted online application form for entrance examination for the State of M.P. from General Category, the same was accepted. She participated in the examination and secured 539 rank in All India Pre-Medical Test. She was eligible for admission in MBBS course. She was not called for counselling on the ground that the upper age limit for the course was 25 years, hence, she was not eligible. The petitioner filed this petition. By way of an interim order petitioner was permitted to participate in the counselling and the petitioner has been granted admission.
4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in the return have pleaded that prior to conducting entrance examination for the year 2014-15, a decision was taken by the State Government to give admission in MBBS/BDS course through competitive examination. The Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi which is known as AIPMT (All India Premedical Test) conducted the examination. The Rule 9.2 as filed by the petitioner of All India Premedical Test, prescribes maximum age for candidate of State quota in accordance with the aforesaid rule, the age 3 W.P. No. 9483/2014.
which is prescribed under the State Rules would be the upper age limit. At the time of examination, the State had not framed rules, subsequently, the rules were framed and those rules were applicable at the time of counselling. In accordance with the rules the upper age limit was 25 years because the petitioner crossed the aforesaid age limit, hence, the petitioner was not called for counselling because she was not eligible.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that at the time of examination, the petitioner was within the age limit prescribed under the Rules. Rules which came into existence at the time of counselling of the petitioner would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, hence, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments.
1. State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467.
2. Kishor Kumar and others Vs. Pradeep Shukla and others (2012) 4 SCC 103.
3. Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Singh Bora and another (2014) 8 SCC
644. 4 W.P. No. 9483/2014.
6. Contrary to this learned Government Advocate has contended that the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit at the time of counselling in accordance with rule, hence, the petitioner was not eligible to get admission in the professional course.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, named as AIPMT for State quota. Rule 9.2 of the Examination quoted above in this order prescribes the age of candidate. In accordance with the aforesaid rules, the upper age limit would be in accordance with the rules framed by the concerned State Government.
8. The State Government earlier framed the rules named as Madhya Pradesh Government Autonomous Medical and Dental Undergraduate Admission Rules- 2013. These rules were came into force w.e.f. 10/05/2013 i.e. from the date of publication in the gazette. Rule 6.3 prescribes the age limit which reads as under:-
"No candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to a Medical/Dental College until the candidate has completed or shall complete the age of 17 years 5 W.P. No. 9483/2014.
on or before 31 December of the year of entrance examination".
9. In accordance with the aforesaid rules, there was no upper age limit prescribed for the candidate. The minimum age limit was prescribed as 17 years.
10. Subsequently, another rules were framed by the government Named as Madhya Pradesh Government Autonomous Medical and Dental Undergraduate Admission Rules- 2014. These rules came in to force w.e.f. 19 June, 2014. Rule 6.3 of the rules of 2014 prescribes upper age limit of 25 years which reads as under:-
6.3(2) Upper age limit for candidates seeking admission on State Quota seats shall be 25 years as on 31 December 2014 the year of the entrance examination. Further provided that this age limit shall be relaxed by a period of 5(five) years for reserved category candidates of M.P., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/ Other Backward classes.
Candidate must be born on or between:-
i)01.01.1985 to 01.01.1998 (SC/ST/OBC Category)
ii) 01.01.1990 to 01.01.1998(Unreserved) For reckoning the age, as aforesaid, the date of birth as mentioned in the Certificate of High School Or in the MARK- SHEET of the said examination shall be the authentic documentary proof.6
W.P. No. 9483/2014.
The evidence in support of proof of age may be considered if a candidate who otherwise satisfies the domicile requirements and who on account of being with his/her parents in a foreign country passes examination abroad, certified by the School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh as equivalent to High School Certificate examination in Madhya Pradesh.
11. In accordance with the aforesaid rule a candidate who had completed 25 years on 31 st December, 2014 would not be eligible for admission.
12. The date of examination as per entrance test, 2014 was 04/05/2014. Earlier to that the petitioner submitted her application through NET. She cleared the examination and on the date of filing of the application, on the date of declaration of result and the date of examination, the rules of 2014 were not came into force. Rules of 2014 came into force w.e.f. 19 th June 2014 at the time of counselling.
13. The supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467 has held as under in regard to applicability of the rules in the selection process after considering earlier judgments of the Apex Court on this point:- 7
W.P. No. 9483/2014.
"The decisions which have been cited on behalf of the Respondent have clearly explained the law with regard to the applicability of the Rules which are amended and/or altered during the selection process. They all say in one voice that the norms or Rules as existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, unless specifically the same were given retrospective effect."
14. The same principle has been followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent judgments reported in the case of Kishor Kumar and others Vs. Pradeep Shukla and others (2012) 4 SCC 103 & Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Singh Bora and another (2014) 8 SCC 644. The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court is that the Rules as existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, until and unless rules provides retrospective operation.
15. In the present case, the rules of 2014 came into force w.e.f. 19 th June 2014. In the aforesaid rules the upper age limit i.e. 25 years has been fixed. The process of selection had begin prior to coming into force of these rules, even the result was declared in May 2014. At that 8 W.P. No. 9483/2014.
time, the rules of 2013 were applicable. Under the aforesaid rules there was no upper age limit prescribed for admission. In such circumstances in our opinion, the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit for the purpose of admission. She had already cleared the examination and she has also given the admission, hence her admission is legal.
16. Consequently, the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit for the purpose of getting admission in the professional MBBS course. Her admission be treated as legal. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) (C.V. Sirpurkar)
JUDGE JUDGE.
MISHRA