Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikrant Chourasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2014
1
Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
W . P. No. 12778/13
6/08/14
Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K. S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Adv. General
for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Seeking a direction to the respondent no. 3 institute to return back all the original certificates and documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of seeking admission to the Course in the respondent no. 3 institute in the year 2013, this writ petition has been filed.
Petitioner claims to be a candidate belonging to the O. B. C. category. In pursuance to the rule framed, respondent no. 2 the Director in Medical Education Department conducted the Pre-Medical Test, 2013 for admission to various M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. courses in the Government and Private Medical Colleges. It seems that petitioner appeared in the examination and secured certain marks which places him at Serial No. 291 of the merit list.
The State Govt. conducted the counselling proceedings on 21.07.13 at Bhopal. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though, seats were available and he could be allotted seat either in the Govt. Medical College or in the Private Medical College but he could not secure admission as the original Transfer Certificate and other documents were not available with him. It is said that in the year 2009, petitioner had sought admission for the B. D. S. 2 Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
course in the respondent no. 3 Aurbindo Institute of Medical Science, Indore. Petitioner continued with the course upto the year 2010 but left the course and started preparing for appearing and selection in the M. B. B. S course. It is said that when the petitioner took admission in the year 2009-10 in the Aurbindo Medical College and Research Centre at Indore for the B. D. S. course, he has deposited a fee of Rs. 1,87,800/- as fee for one session and now as his Transfer Certificate and other documents are not given, he seeks a mandamus to the respondent no. 3 through respondent no. 2 for returning the mark-sheet of Class-X, Class-XII, Migration Certificate, Gap Certificate and Character Certificate which was deposited by him in the institute in the year 2009 while seeking admission through counseling by the State Govt. for the B. D. S. course.
State Govt. represented by Shri Wadhwa submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 institute is an inter-se dispute and the State Govt. has no say in the matter. However, he admits that petitioner was admitted to the course and the seat was allotted to him in the Government counseling and deposit of the documents have been done in accordance with the schemes/rules formulated by the State Govt. for admission to professional medical institution.
Shri Shashank Verma submits that petitioner was admitted to the B. D. S. course which is a 5 1/2 years course but he has left the course within one year, as a result, the seat fell vacant, no admission was given to any other 3 Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
student, as a result the institute suffered monetary loss as the seat could not be filled up for 4 1/2 years. Accordingly, contending that the institute having suffered the loss and petitioner can be provided the mark-sheets and other documents only if this loss is compensated, respondent no. 3 resist the claim made by the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Verma invited our attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in para 8 of its judgment in the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 (6) SCC 697 to support his contention.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the records, it is clear that petitioner took admission in the B. D. S. course after he was selected in the entrance examination conducted by the State Govt. through the Directorate of Medical Education. The petitioner deposited the fees and other documents in accordance with the rules and regulations formulated by the State Govt. through the department concerned and even the seat for the petitioner in the institute respondent no. 3 was allotted by the State Govt. Petitioner has deposited all the certificates in accordance with the requirement of rule and fees for one session Rs. 1,87,800/- was also deposited by the petitioner.
Now, the question is as to whether the respondent no. 3 can retain the documents and refuse parting of the documents on the ground that it has suffered loss and, therefore, the documents cannot be given until and unless 4 Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
they are compensated.
There are no statutory rule, regulations or scheme which permits the institute to retain the documents, nothing is brought to our notice to say that respondents can retain the documents on the grounds now canvassed. There is no rule or regulation or provision enforceable by law which permits such action to be taken. The documents of the petitioner which are his personal property and, therefore, he has a right to possess the same.
In the case of Islamic Academy (supra) relied upon by Shri Shashank Verma, certain arguments were advanced to the effect that students are in the habit of leaving the institute/course midstream when they get better seats or admission in the other institute/course. As a result, the seat remains vacant for the remaining part of the term and the educational institute suffers monetary loss. The Supreme Court observed this fact, but only said that if an institute feels that a particular student may leave the course in midstream, then it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee or it is for the institute to seek any other guarantee or security from the student so that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in the midstream. In the present case, nothing of this sought has been done and now it is only said that the documents cannot be retained.
The documents like the Mark-sheets, Migration Certificate and Transfer Certificate are the documents of the petitioner and he has a right to retain possession of these 5 Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
documents as they are essential for prosecuting his career and for all other purpose in connection with his career or otherwise. No process known to law is brought to our notice for depriving custody of the documents to the petitioner.
Respondents have not brought to our notice any such provision which permit them to retain the documents. That being the position, it is a case where respondent no. 3 has illegally and without any authority of law retained the documents of the petitioner. This is not permissible. The documents which belong to the petitioner and which he has a legal right to retain can be retained by the respondent no. 3 only if rules or regulations permit so. If the institute feels that it has suffered the monetary loss due to the student leaving the institute, then it may initiate any proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the loss but on such ground in the absence of any provision being available, they cannot retain the documents, accordingly we allow this writ petition for the simple reason that the petitioner's right to retain the documents which belong to him is illegally interfered with by the respondent no. 3 without any authority of law.
The right of the respondent no. 3 to receive the compensation or loss caused to it by the petitioner is no ground for retaining the documents, and, therefore, we see no reason to accept the objections of the respondents and reject the prayer of the petitioner.
Respondent no. 3 is directed to return all the original documents of the petitioner and in case, the respondent no. 3 6 Vikrant Chourasiya Vs. State of M. P. and others.
institute feels that petitioner has acted in a manner not permissible in leaving the seat in midstream resulting in loss, the institute may initiate fresh proceedings in accordance to law for recovery of the loss or damages caused or harm caused.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty to the respondent no. 3, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vy*