Mabel Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No. 255 of 2002
(Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India)
In Special Leave petition (C) No. 203 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11443 of 2001)
(Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India)
In Special Leave petition (C) No. 203 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11443 of 2001)
Petitioner: Mabel
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No. 255 of 2002
(Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India)
In Special Leave petition (C) No. 203 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11443 of 2001)
(Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India)
In Special Leave petition (C) No. 203 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11443 of 2001)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 29, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. K.V. Viswanathan and Mr. K.V. Vijay Kumar, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Articles 226, 136, 137 – Admission sought in BDS course for the year 2000-2001, but abandoned – Cleared entrance exams for MBBS/BDS for year the 2001-2002 – Apprehending that she may not be considered for MBBS, filed writ – Being unsuccessful, filed SLP, which was dismissed in limini – Review – Clause 18 of infor-mation brochure of university barring admission to those already admitted to MBBS/BDS course. Held that the clause was enacted in public interest and it would be operative during the period of course in which candidate has sought admission. Hence, review dismissed. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The petitioner seeks review of our order dismissing S.L.P. (C) No. 203 of 2002 in limine on January 21, 2002.
2. In the academic year 2000-2001 the petitioner took admission in B.D.S. in M.M. College of Dental Science and Research (Molla-na), Ambala but subsequently she withdrew from the course. Howev-er, she appeared in the entrance examination of MBBS/BDS courses in Haryana for the academic year 2001-02 and secured 37th rank. According to her she was entitled to admission in MBBS course in the Rohtak Medical College, Rohtak. In view of clause 18 of the information brochure of Kurukshetra University, Haryana, for MBBS/BDS entrance examination (for short, ‘the Information Brochure’) she apprehended that she would not be considered for admission to the MBBS course so she filed writ petition (civil writ petition no. 11443 of 2001) challenging validity of clause 18 of the information brochure and seeking a mandamus to the respondents to permit her to compete for admission to MBBS course ignoring the said clause. By order dated November 8, 2001, the division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandi-garh upheld the validity of the said clause and negatived her claim for admission to MBBS course. She unsuccessfully challenged validity of the said order of the High Court in the aforemen-tioned special leave petition which was dismissed by our order, now under review.
3. It is submitted by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that clause 18 of the information brochure cannot be so interpreted as to debar her from seeking admission to the course for all time to come and if the order is not re-viewed she would be precluded from seeking admission in the MBBS course forever which is an unintended punishment. Mr. Sanghi would contend that clause 18 bars a student who has taken admis-sion in one course, to seek admission in another course.
4. It will be useful to refer to clause 18 which reads as under:
“18. The candidates already admitted in any Medical/Dental Colleges will not be considered eligible for admission to the Course.”
5. A plain reading of the aforementioned clause shows that a candidate who was already admitted in a medical or dental college would be ineligible for admission in the other course. The said clause at times will operate harshly as in the case of the peti-tioner but it is meant to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admission should not abandon the studies after the com-mencement of that course to seek admission in another course which is in public interest, for otherwise it would result in the wastage of the seat in the course in which he has taken admission and further such a change would deprive another eligible can-didate from seeking admission to the other course. Obviously, the intention of the concerned authority in framing clause 18 appears to be to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admis-sion with his free will in any course (MBBS or BDS) should com-plete that course and should not change his mind in midstream. It, therefore, follows that the bar is intended to be operative during the period of the course in which a candidate has taken admission. After completing that course or in the event of aban-doning the course (MBBS/BDS) and not studying for the normal period (4 years/5 years as the case may be) the candidate would become eligible after the end of such period of the course to seek admission in the course of his choice provided other condi-tions of admission are satisfied. In other words, the bar under clause 18 in this case will cease after the BDS course for the academic year 2000/2001, in which the petitioner has taken admis-sion comes to an end after 5 years. In the light of the above observations the petitioner will be free to seek admission in the course of her choice after the end of the BDS course which com-menced in 2000-2001.
6. We dispose of the review petition accordingly. No Costs.
1. The petitioner seeks review of our order dismissing S.L.P. (C) No. 203 of 2002 in limine on January 21, 2002.
2. In the academic year 2000-2001 the petitioner took admission in B.D.S. in M.M. College of Dental Science and Research (Molla-na), Ambala but subsequently she withdrew from the course. Howev-er, she appeared in the entrance examination of MBBS/BDS courses in Haryana for the academic year 2001-02 and secured 37th rank. According to her she was entitled to admission in MBBS course in the Rohtak Medical College, Rohtak. In view of clause 18 of the information brochure of Kurukshetra University, Haryana, for MBBS/BDS entrance examination (for short, ‘the Information Brochure’) she apprehended that she would not be considered for admission to the MBBS course so she filed writ petition (civil writ petition no. 11443 of 2001) challenging validity of clause 18 of the information brochure and seeking a mandamus to the respondents to permit her to compete for admission to MBBS course ignoring the said clause. By order dated November 8, 2001, the division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandi-garh upheld the validity of the said clause and negatived her claim for admission to MBBS course. She unsuccessfully challenged validity of the said order of the High Court in the aforemen-tioned special leave petition which was dismissed by our order, now under review.
3. It is submitted by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that clause 18 of the information brochure cannot be so interpreted as to debar her from seeking admission to the course for all time to come and if the order is not re-viewed she would be precluded from seeking admission in the MBBS course forever which is an unintended punishment. Mr. Sanghi would contend that clause 18 bars a student who has taken admis-sion in one course, to seek admission in another course.
4. It will be useful to refer to clause 18 which reads as under:
“18. The candidates already admitted in any Medical/Dental Colleges will not be considered eligible for admission to the Course.”
5. A plain reading of the aforementioned clause shows that a candidate who was already admitted in a medical or dental college would be ineligible for admission in the other course. The said clause at times will operate harshly as in the case of the peti-tioner but it is meant to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admission should not abandon the studies after the com-mencement of that course to seek admission in another course which is in public interest, for otherwise it would result in the wastage of the seat in the course in which he has taken admission and further such a change would deprive another eligible can-didate from seeking admission to the other course. Obviously, the intention of the concerned authority in framing clause 18 appears to be to ensure that a candidate who has already secured admis-sion with his free will in any course (MBBS or BDS) should com-plete that course and should not change his mind in midstream. It, therefore, follows that the bar is intended to be operative during the period of the course in which a candidate has taken admission. After completing that course or in the event of aban-doning the course (MBBS/BDS) and not studying for the normal period (4 years/5 years as the case may be) the candidate would become eligible after the end of such period of the course to seek admission in the course of his choice provided other condi-tions of admission are satisfied. In other words, the bar under clause 18 in this case will cease after the BDS course for the academic year 2000/2001, in which the petitioner has taken admis-sion comes to an end after 5 years. In the light of the above observations the petitioner will be free to seek admission in the course of her choice after the end of the BDS course which com-menced in 2000-2001.
6. We dispose of the review petition accordingly. No Costs.
