R. Nithyapriya v. Revenue Divisional Officer And Others

Order

1. Special leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant had applied for admission to MBBS course in the medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu during the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the basis that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. In respect of the 1994-95 session, the appellant received a telegram asking her to appear on 8-12-1994 for admission to MBBS free seat in Perundurai Medical College with original community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. For the 1995-96 session, she was instructed to appear before the Selection Committee, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital Campus for counselling on 28-6-1995 for allotment of free seats at Perundurai Medical Colleges, Perundurai and P.S.G Medical College, Coimbatore. She could not avail the benefit of the selection for the purpose of admission in the 1994-95 session since she was not given the requisite community certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer certifying that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe before 8-12-1994. The appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 21553 of 1994) in the Madras High Court wherein an interim order was passed in the following terms on 29-12-1994:

“There will be a limited interim direction to keep the seat allotted to the petitioner vacant to enable the petitioner to produce the necessary community certificate.”

4. During the pendency of the said writ petition the application of the appellant for grant of community certificate was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 30-1-1995. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the community certificate the appellant filed another writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2129 of 1995) before the Madras High Court wherein an interim order dated 16-3-1995 was passed in the following terms:

“… the petitioner may be admitted and allowed to continue her course at her risk in all aspects including attendance provided the seat as ordered earlier by this Court is kept vacant.”

5. Writ Appeal No. 402 of 1995 was filed against the said interim order dated 16-3-1995. The Division Bench of the High Court while dealing with the said appeal, also considered the writ petition and disposed of the same by judgment dated 20-9-1996. In the said judgment the learned Judges gave the following direction:

“In the event of Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community, after a fresh inquiry, as indicated above, as we have been informed that the petitioner in WP No. 2129 of 1995 has been selected for the academic year 1995-96, the authorities concerned shall ensure that the petitioner in WP No. 2129 of 1995 is admitted for the academic year 1995-96 for the first year MBBS course provided that the petitioner is able to produce a certificate that she belongs to Konda Reddy community, by the end of November 1995.”

6. Since the appellant was again denied the community certificate, she had to file a third writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2847 of 1997) in the High Court which has been decided by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25-7-1997 wherein the following direction has been given:

“It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the petitioner was deprived from joining the medical course during the year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 due to petitioner's inability to produce the community certificate. Now that this Court has found that the petitioner is entitled to the community certificate as claimed by her and necessary direction has been issued in this regard to the first respondent, if the petitioner otherwise qualifies/satisfies, the second respondent is directed to consider her case sympathetically, if any seat for MBBS course is available.”

7. The grievance of the appellant is confined to the last part of the aforesaid direction whereby instead of directing that the appellant be granted admission to MBBS course, the learned Judge has only directed that if she otherwise qualifies/satisfies, her case may be considered sympathetically if any seat for MBBS course is available.

8. Shri P.P Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that in view of the fact that the appellant had been selected for admission to MBBS course for 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions and she was denied admission only because the community certificate had been wrongly denied to her, the High Court should have given an appropriate direction undoing the wrong that was done to her on account of denial of the community certificate and that a positive direction should have been given by the Court directing the Selection Committee for MBBS course, Respondent 2, to allot a seat to the appellant for admission to MBBS course in one of the colleges in the current session. The learned counsel has also submitted that seats are available and that the appellant can be adjusted against the available seats.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, opposed the said claim of the appellant for her being entitled to be admitted in MBBS course for the current session on the ground that no seat is available against which the appellant can be granted admission in the current session. In the affidavit dated 22-9-1997 of Dr H. Pramila, Additional Director of Medical Education in the State of Tamil Nadu, filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that on 1-9-1997 there was no vacancy either in general or reserved category in any of the medical colleges run by the Government against which the appellant could be accommodated and, therefore, the appellant cannot be considered for admission to the first year of MBBS course. In the said affidavit it is stated that after the completion of the process of admission, the Government has prepared a list of 100 eligible candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes with a view to accommodate them against any future vacancy that may arise and that the appellant figures at Serial No. 20 in the said list and that candidates up to Serial No. 11 in the list of eligible Scheduled Tribe candidates have already been selected for admission to the first year of MBBS and that there are eight Scheduled Tribe candidates over and above the appellant and that she could be considered for admission after these eight candidates are admitted in the future. The learned counsel has also urged that it is wrong to say that the appellant had been selected for admission to MBBS course for 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions and that she was only called for counselling and that the question of selection would have arisen after the counselling was completed.

10. Shri Rao has refuted the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. As regards the averments contained in the affidavit of Dr H. Pramila, Shri Rao has invited our attention to the letter dated 16-8-1997 from the Secretary, Selection Committee, KMC Hospital Campus, Chennai, addressed to the appellant where it is stated that she could not be accommodated for admission in the current session because there was one more candidate with marks above her. Shri Rao has submitted that if on 16-8-1997 there was only one candidate above the appellant with higher marks, it is difficult to understand how 19 candidates came above the appellant on 1-9-1997 as mentioned in the affidavit of Dr H. Pramila.

11. Having regard to the telegram asking her to appear on 8-12-1994 for admission to MBBS free seat in Perundurai Medical College in the 1994-95 session and the communication instructing her to appear before the Selection Committee for counselling on 28-6-1995 for allotment of free seats at Perundurai Medical College and P.S.G Medical College for the 1995-96 session, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had not been selected for admission to MBBS course for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions. The interim orders passed by the High Court on 29-12-1994 in Writ Petition No. 21553 of 1994 and the interim order dated 16-3-1995 and the final order dated 26-9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 2129 of 1995 indicate that the appellant had been selected for admission to MBBS course for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions. The impugned judgment of the High Court also proceeds on the basis that the appellant was deprived from joining the medical course during the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 due to her inability to produce the community certificate.

12. In view of the fact that the community certificate, which was earlier refused, has not been granted to the appellant, it must be held that the appellant was wrongly denied admission to MBBS course in the 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions. Since due to a wrongful denial of the community certificate to the appellant on the part of the authorities of the State she could not be admitted to MBBS course for which she had been selected in 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions, the respondents are bound to undo the wrong done to her and they must admit her in MBBS course for the current session against an available vacancy. The High Court, in our opinion, was not right in merely directing that the case of the appellant should be considered sympathetically, if any seat is available. The proper course in the fact and circumstances of the case would have been to give a direction that the appellant should be admitted to MBBS course for the current 1997-98 session against an available vacancy and if a vacancy is not available, against the first vacancy which becomes available on account of any of the selected candidates not availing the allotted seat.

13. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the appellant be given admission to MBBS course in the 1997-98 session against an available vacancy and, if no vacancy is available today, she should be granted admission against the first vacancy which becomes available. The direction given by the High Court in the impugned judgment will stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs.