Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) He categorically admitted before the Court that the present petitioner did come and ask for form for admission to P.G. Course but, P.G. clerk and he have refused the same as she had not then completed internship of six months. He also admitted that between 22nd of May, 1995 and 31st May, 1995, petitioner personally saw him and asked for admission form of P.G. Course and that he stated to her that those students who have not completed the internship, were not eligible to fill-in and apply for admission. The petitioner also complained to him that those students who have not completed internship have got the admission form while she alone was being denied the admission form by the Office of the first respondent-College and Principal admitted that he might have initially denied the form to the petitioner when she was accompanied by her parents.

(x) During the course of hearing of this petition, the learned A.G.P. and at one time the Principal of Akhandanand Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya took up the stand that the petitioner otherwise did not deserve any admission as she tried to bring political pressure for giving admission form to her. When he was specifically interrogated about the name of the Minister and the nature of influence which he exercised, he stated in the Court that the Hon'ble Minister was the Cabinet Minister but was not holding the portfolio of Health. He further stated that the concerned Cabinet Minister had straightway rushed to Jamnagar and has referred to the various files and forms for admission as he was interested in anyhow securing the admission of his own daughter in M.D. Ayurvedic Course. About the visit of the Cabinet Minister of the State of Jamnagar University, his calling for the admission forms and going through the various files and the purpose of his visit, the Dean of the University has observed deliberate silence but asserted in the affidavit-in-reply that the Principal informed him by a subsequent letter that he has received the admission form of the petitioner on 31 st may, 1995 and he has done so under political pressure. These assertions made by the Dean in his affidavit-in-reply is not at all supported by the Principal of the College in his oral submission. From what is stated hereinabove, it becomes clear that political influence, if any, was sought to be exercised by concerned Cabinet Minister for securing admission to his own ward and that too at the level of respondent No. 2-University. The Dean has tried to lay the entire blame at the door of the Principal, i.e., first respondent and has tried to justify his stand by reference to various decisions taken by the Admission Committee. The aforesaid letter to which the Dean has made reference allegedly to have been received by him from Principal of the College is dated 3rd August, 1995 and on the reading thereof, it appears to be an inspired letter or procured letter obtained to save the skin of the Institution. Such a letter is obtained from the Principal as the Admission Committee having miserably failed in discharge of its statutory duty wanted to deny admission as per its own list to petitioner. The Principal has frankly and fairly stated before the Court that admission form was denied to the petitioner as she has not completed the internship and secondly that it was subsequently given to her because the matter was clarified by the Dean of the University that completion of internship has no relevance to the eligibility for getting the admission form and for filling-in the admission form. From the aforesaid allegations, it is difficult to assume that the petitioner has in fact resorted to any unfair means for getting admission to M.D. Ayurvedic Course. She has been in fact frantically trying for getting admission form for M.D. Ayurvedic Course on the basis of her merit but the admission form thereof was denied by P.G. clerk and the Principal at Akhandanand Ayurvedic College, respondent No. 1. On the contrary the case of the petitioner as introduced in the petition by way of amendment is very specific that the admission form was withheld in her case with some ulterior motive as the authorities wanted to oblige influential persons or because of the wrong understanding of the P.G. Admission Ordinance by the Principal of firsi respondent-College to the effect that those candidates, who had not completed their internship were not eligible to fill-in the form for admission to M.D. Ayurvedic Course. The petitioner and her parents have even complained to the Dean of the University that the call letter for interview is not being issued to the petitioner and the Dean of the University confirms this position. The Dean of the University was fair and just in stating before the Court that since number of admission forms were issued late by respondent No. 1-College, it was decided to issue interview call letters to all candidates including those whose forms were received late. The Dean has been also fair and reasonable in stating before the Court that since Principal of the first respondent-College has extended the date of receipt of the admission forms upto 27th May, 1995 those students were considered to be eligible for being issued the interview call letters and had any candidates been selected and included in the merit list from such candidates, the Gujarat Ayurvedic University would have given him the admission on the basis of merit. However, he states that fortunately, no candidates, whose form was submitted beyond 22nd May, 1995 found place in the merit list or ultimately came to be admitted because respondent No. 3 who also got admission from the waiting list had submitted the application on 22nd of May, 1995. Otherwise they would have given admission to the students from Ahmedabad College who had submitted the admission forms upto 27th May, 1995. That eventuality has not occurred and purely accidentally in the facts of the case the cut off date of 22nd May, 1995 for submitting the admission form is observed. She has stated that one student, namely, Snehlata Patel, who is the daughter of a Minister, namely, Arvind Patel, was also studying in Akhandanand Ayurvedic College, Ahmedabad, who has completed the B.A.M.S. Examination but has not completed the internship and who was to complete the internship on 30-6-1995. She was given the admission form by the Principal of Akhandanand Ayurvedic College. There was one another candidate, namely, Falguni Patel, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the Professor in the College had also not completed her internship and yet she was given the admission form. She was, however, consistently denied the admission form by the Principal of the respondent No. 1-College. Other two students, namely, Himanshu Parikh and Vipul Vyas were also given the admission forms though they had not completed their internship on 30th June, 1995. According to her, she was thus denied the equal and just opportunity of prosecuting her higher studies in Post Graduation despite her name being included in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 and such action of the respondent is in every respect violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and of the right of the brilliant student to prosecute his/her higher studies or studies involving research work.

According to the Principal, the first respondent, and his staff firmly believed and maintain that the admission forms could not be issued to the students who have not completed the period of compulsory internship and that he as well as his P.G. clerk refused forms for admission to number of students. Around 22nd May, 1995 and thereafter for some days he was out of town and during this period, the P.G. clerk had issued certain admission forms to the students, who had not completed the period of compulsory internship. He states and maintains that the petitioner or her parents did approach him and asked for the admission form but since he was holding the view that the petitioner has not completed the period of compulsory internship, she was not eligible to apply for admission, he refused admission form to her. However, when it was brought to the notice that admission forms were issued to some of the students, who had not completed the period of compulsory internship, as he was in confusion, he sought clarification from the second respondent-University and by telegram message sent by the second respondent-Dean he was informed that as per decision of the Admission Committee candidates completing internship by 31st July, 1995 are allowed to sit in M.D. (Ayurvedic) Entrance Test to be held on 29th of June, 1995. He was further informed to take action accordingly. This telegram though does not expressly referred to the completion of compulsory internship as criteria of eligibility, it does state that the candidates completing the internship by 31st July, 1995 are allowed to sit in M.D. (Ayurvedic) Entrance Test.

Thus, there exists a just and bona fide dispute about interpretation of P.G. 3(a) between the Principal and the Dean of the University, second respondent and admittedly, the first respondent has not issued admission forms to number of candidates on the ground that they had not completed period of compulsory internship and were, therefore, not eligible while according to the Dean of the University, such students were eligible and they ought to have been issued the form of admission.

Though it is true that P.G. 2(e) does not refer to eligibility, it does state that candidates should have completed the compulsory internship. It could, therefore, be said that if literal interpretation is placed on the Ordinance, completion of compulsory internship by the candidates was essential. On the other hand, the Ordinance does not refer to the date on which compulsory internship should have been completed. According to Dean, completion of compulsory internship by the candidate has no relevance at the date of the issuance of the admission form or on the date of interviewing the candidates at Entrance test. In case, a candidate is selected and included in the merit list, but he/she turns out to be one, who does not complete the compulsory internship by 31st of July, 1995, he/she shall not be entitled for admission to M.D. (Ayurvedic) Course. On either of the interpretation, completion of compulsory internship can be said to be a criteria of eligibility for admission to M.D. (Ayurvedic) Course, though it would not assume much importance at a time when only admission forms are received from the candidates. This is also to be read in light of the fact that adverisement issued, both by the first and the second respondent, nowhere prescribed that candidate must have completed the compulsory internship on the date of submission of the admission form. In the absence of any such stipulation, the second respondent, Dean of the University, may be said to be right in contending that completion of compulsory internship was not the criteria of eligibility. However, the view held by the Principal of the first respondent-College is also not unreasonable or unsustainable. The second view is possible. He has consistently taken that view and has stuck to his interpretation all throughout the proceedings. He has denied or refused forms of admissions to number of students who have not completed the period of compulsory internship and petitioner is admittedly one of such students. Unfortunately, in his absence, P.G. clerk has issued admission forms to such students who had not completed the period of compulsory internship. The benefit of this conflicting interpretation cannot go to the University nor can the University sit tight over its own interpretation and can disregard the just, fair and bona fide claim of a meritorious student. When the Principal has consistently said and even, written to the second respondent, Dean of the University, that the students who have not completed the period of compulsory internship were not eligible for issuance of admission form, the University could have better clarified the position in clear terms rather than issuing a very vague telegram which does not make any sense. This Court would, therefore, hold that even if two interpretations of P.G. 2(e) Ordinance are possible and even if interpretations placed by the Dean of the University may be a permissible interpretation, the second view held by the Principal of the College was also plausible and permissible and when under such interpretation admission form is admittedly denied to the petitioner from 22nd May, 1995, no fault could be found on the part of the petitioner nor could it be said that she did not follow the cut off line, that being 22nd of May, 1995.