- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Umesh Kumar Tripathi v. State Of M.P. And Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion disposes of three petitions (Misc. Petition Nos. 584, 845, and 984 of 1989) filed by candidates claiming admission to two years' diploma courses in various disciplines at G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. The diploma courses for the 1988-89 academic year had commenced on 24.10.1988, but admissions had been made only to the one-year diploma course, filling 24 out of 27 seats. The Petitioners sought admission to the two-year diploma courses, but their claims were refused by the Respondents, including the Dean of the College, relying on a prior Supreme Court decision (Ajay Pradhan's case). The petitions had been heard multiple times, and the Court sought the Selection Committee's meeting proceedings, which were not produced. The College Council and State Government maintained that filling the remaining three seats would contravene the Supreme Court decision. The Court examined whether the seats were validly filled and whether the Petitioners' claims had been properly considered.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the seats in the two-year diploma courses for the 1988 academic session had been validly filled by the respondents.
- Whether the Petitioners are entitled to admission or consideration for admission to the two-year diploma courses despite the academic session nearing completion.
- Whether the decision in Ajay Pradhan's case precludes the respondents from filling the remaining vacant seats.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents, represented by Shri Dudawat, State Counsel, argued that the diploma courses had already commenced on 24.10.1988 and that all admitted students were enrolled in the one-year diploma course, which was about to conclude within a month.
- They contended that the seats were filled as per the relevant rules and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ajay Pradhan's case to justify refusal of admission to the Petitioners.
- The College Council decided not to fill the remaining three vacant seats, believing such action would contradict the Supreme Court ruling.
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Petitioners claimed entitlement to admission to the two-year diploma courses based on merit and relevant rules.
- They argued that the seats had not been duly filled since only the one-year diploma course list was considered, leaving three seats vacant in the two-year diploma courses.
- They sought consideration for admission either in the current or the forthcoming academic session.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ajay Pradhan's case, AIR 1988 SC 1875 | Clarification that a seat allotted must be availed by a specified date; if not availed, it is not deemed filled and must be offered to other eligible candidates according to merit. | The Court held that the College Council and Respondents misconstrued this precedent by failing to fill vacant seats, which was their duty. The Court emphasized that the principle requires filling all seats and offering admission to eligible candidates promptly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the facts and found that although the diploma courses for 1988-89 had commenced, the admissions were made only to the one-year diploma course, leaving three seats in the two-year diploma courses vacant and unfilled. The respondents failed to consider candidates on the two-year diploma course list, thereby neglecting their duty to fill all available seats. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Pradhan's case, the Court held that seats not availed by a specified date cannot be deemed filled, and it is incumbent on the authorities to fill such vacancies with eligible candidates based on merit. The Court rejected the respondents' contention that filling these seats would contravene the Supreme Court ruling, clarifying that the decision supported prompt filling of vacancies. Although the 1988 session was nearing completion, the Court recognized the Petitioners' right to be considered for admission in the fresh academic session of 1989 alongside other eligible candidates. The Court also clarified the distinction between one-year and two-year diploma courses based on prior qualifications and internships, affirming that the Petitioners cannot now be admitted to the closing 1988 session but are entitled to consideration for the next session.
Holding and Implications
The petitions are allowed partly.
The Court held that the Petitioners are entitled to consideration for admission to the two-year diploma courses for the 1989 academic session. The respondents are directed to consider the Petitioners' claims along with other eligible candidates applying for the two-year diploma course, taking into account merit and current eligibility. The Court did not grant admission for the 1988 session, which is nearly over, but ensured that the Petitioners' claims are not lost due to the respondents' prior inaction. No order as to costs was made, and any outstanding security deposits are to be refunded to the Petitioners. The decision does not create a new precedent but clarifies the application of existing principles regarding seat allotment and admission procedures.
T.N. Singh, J.
1. This order shall dispose of three petitions. These are Misc. Petition Nos. 584, 845 and 984, all of 1989. The common cause which links the three petitions is singular in that all of the Petitioners have staked claim for admission albeit in different disciplines, to two years' diploma courses in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior.
2. Petitioner Umesh Kumar Tripathi of Misc. Petition No. 584 of 1989 has not expressed preference for any particular discipline. His counsel has submitted that his claim to admission to any particular discipline may be determined in terms of the relevant rules according to relevant merit of different candidates. Petitioners Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta and Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta of Misc. Petition No. 845 of 1989 have, however, expressed their preference for the E.N.T. Course and similarly, Dr. Amitabh Shrivastava of Misc. Petition No. 984 of 1989, for Opthalmology course.
3. Admitted position on facts is that diploma courses for 1988-89 academic year have started on 24.10.1988, but the fact which is also admitted is those students who are pursuing studies in that course are all admitted in one year diploma course. In that regard, the contention of Shri Dudawat, State Counsel, is of substance that those students will be completing their course of studies within a month or so. Counsel has, therefore, supported the action of the Respondents including the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, refusing admission to the Petitioners relying on Ajay Pradhan's case 1988 JLJ 563 : AIR 1988 SC 1875.
4. Unfortunately, for the Respondents, the controversy does not end that way. Because, the admitted position also is that out of 27 seats in diploma course in various disciplines, only 24 seats had been filled up. Today, before us in Court, two selection lists are produced. Those are captioned respectively (I) "One Year Diploma Course" and (II) "Two Year Diploma Course" for the year 1988. Shri Dudawat has conceded that list-I of One Year Diploma Course was only considered and admission of 24 students whose names figure in that list had been made. We do not understand why the Dean or College Council and the State Government found it necessary not to do anything else in the matter of filling up the other three seats. It cannot be denied that entitlement for admission in the diploma courses in various disciplines for the year 1988 was open to candidates pursuing not only One Year Diploma Course, but also Two Year Diploma Course. It cannot, therefore, be said that the seats had been duly "filled up" for the academic session 1988 and the Petitioners have no standing before us to challenge the action of the Respondents.
5. These petitions had come up before us a number of times and on the last date, we made a direction that we would like to see the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 27.1.1989 because it was contended that some decision was taken thereof in regard to filling up of those three vacancies also. That has not been produced today and it is submitted by Shri Dudawat that the College Council took the view that it has not to fill up those three seats because such an action would have run counter to the decision in Ajay Pradhan (supra).
6. We must say that the Dean or the College Council or even the State Government has misconceived the scope of the decision of their Lordships aforecited. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to accept the position on facts that the academic session in the diploma courses for the year 1988 did not legally and validly commence at all as the concerned authorities failed to discharge their duties in considering entitlement of candidates of both lists. Cases were considered only of list-I and those who figured in list-II for admission in Two Year Diploma Course remained unconsidered then; and also now. Till today, decision in regard to their entitlement has not been taken in any manner at any time.
6-A. In Ajay Pradhan's case (supra), at para 11, their Lordships extracted a passage from this Court's judgment and observed that they were in "complete agreement with the view" expressed by this Court in that passage. This Court had observed that when a seat is allotted, a date has to be specified by which it has to be availed. It shall not be deemed "filled up" if it is not availed. It would then become the duty of the concerned authority to fill up the same and offer it to any other eligible candidate according to merit. A decision has to be taken to do so either before the session commences or soon thereafter. If that could be the correct law, and that their Lordships observed, was the law, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the College Council defaulted in its duty in not taking steps to fill up all 27 seats. It was its duty to see that all seats had been duly filled up and none remained vacant and to act in that regard as per guidelines this Court has laid and approved by the Supreme Court. No decision unfortunately was taken prior to commencement of session and even till today, no decision has been taken with regard to entitlement of candidates for Two Year Diploma Course for the academic year 1988.
7. True, 1988 academic session for diploma courses would be over soon, but for that, the Petitioners' claim shall not be deemed lost or washed away by the inaction of the College Council and the Respondents. A fresh academic session would obviously start soon for diploma courses in various disciplines. We are of the view that Petitioners have, no doubt, a case for their claim to be considered even with regard to the fresh academic session that will commence soon. Indeed their cases have to be considered with other similarly situate candidates applying for Two Year Diploma Course. Because none of the candidates whose names appear in list-II applying to the diploma course in 1988 had been considered, it shall be duty of the College Council and Respondents to see that when fresh admissions are made nor to diploma courses in various disciplines, the claim of the Petitioners on merit in list-II aforesaid is considered along with the fresh candidates. It is submitted that a large number of candidates whose name appear in list-II of 1988 have lost eligibility variously. Some have, it is submitted, taken up employment; Ors. , it is submitted, have started private practice or house-jobs in different disciplines. If that be the case, the College Council and the Respondents shall consider case of only the qualified candidates of list-II of 1988, albeit on merits.
8. In the circumstances, the three petitions succeed partly and are allowed, to the extent herein indicated. We hold all the Petitioners to be entitled for consideration for admission for the next academic session of 1989 in the manner directed herein.
9. We make it clear that the candidates claiming for admission into Two Year Diploma Course are obviously those who have done only Internship, having done no House-jobs. In that regard, we entertain no doubt that the academic session for the diploma course is an annual session though for admission thereto, there are two avenues. Those who have done House-jobs shall pursue the course of one year along with those who have done their Internship though students of the latter category have to hang on for Anr. year as they had not done House-job. This position, as submitted by Shri Dudawat, is indeed not disputed. The Petitioners have been granted limited relief for consideration of their cases for the 1989 academic session along with Ors. as they cannot now, at this stage, be considered for admission in the 1988 academic session which is now to close very soon.
10. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security, if any, be refunded to the Petitioner.
Alert