P.K. Mohanty, J.
1. The petitioners in the present Writ Application challenge the action of opposite parties in not granting admission to P.G. Medical Course, 2005 on the ground of non-production of College Leaving Certificate. They have prayed for a direction to admit them to the P.G. Medical Course for which they have been selected in the Entrance Examination after fresh counselling. Prayer has also been made for quashing the counselling of candidates held on 18.4.2005 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The short fact of the petitioners' case bereft of unnecessary details is that petitioners No. 1 to 4 are in-service candidates and they had submitted their service certificates as per the call letter at the time of counselling but the opposite parties insisted that the petitioners have to produce College Leaving Certificate to get admission into P.G. Medical Course, 2005. According to the petitioners, non-production of the College Leaving Certificate at the time of counselling is per se not a serious lapse so as to deny them admission when admittedly they are service holders under the State Government and have produced the certificates issued by the State Government days prior to the counselling. Petitioner No. 1 was selected and ranked 22 in general category and was called by the Convener (opposite party No. 1) to attend the counselling session on 18.4.2005 at 9.00 A.M. for the purpose of admission, but he was denied admission to the course on the ground of non-production of College Leaving Certificate. Petitioner No. 2 was selected and obtained rank 75 in general category and rank 1 in scheduled caste category. Petitioner No. 3 ranked 76 in general category and 2 in Scheduled Tribe category. Similarly petitioner No. 4 ranked 8 in general category. She, however, claims that she obtained the College Leaving Certificate on the same day i.e., on 18.4.2005 from S.C.B. Medical College and produced the same before the authorities but that was not considered and she was denied admission on the ground that the counselling session had already begun and that her College Leaving Certificate cannot be accepted. Petitioner No. 5 was a direct candidate, who appeared in the Entrance Examination and was assigned rank 4 in Physically Handicapped Category.
3. The opposite parties, in their counter have denied the allegation and claim made in the writ petition. The opposite parties have taken the stand that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are in-service candidates and the petitioner No. 5 is a direct physically handicapped category candidate. They were qualified in the P.G. Medical Entrance Examination conducted on 2.6.2005. All the eligible candidates were issued with the call letters with strict instruction to produce the required documents in original for scrutiny at the time of counselling and admission to the P.G. MD/MS course on 18th and 19th April, 2005 to be held at Bhubaneswar. They had submitted all original documents including their service certificates except College Leaving Certificates from the last institution studied, which is one of the important documents to be produced according to the Admission Brochure and as instructed in the call letter. According to the opposite parties, the reason assigned and averments made in the writ petition for non-production of the C.L.C. is unacceptable. It has been submitted that P.G. Prospectus, 2005 under Clause 15.2 clearly stipulated that a selected candidate shall be required to produce all original documents including College Leaving certificate on the day of admission to the College. The allegation of the petitioners that they ought to have been given another opportunity to produce the College Leaving Certificate within a specified time and allowed admission provisionally was impermissible under the Rules. It is stated that the counselling and admission to the P.G. Medical Course were held at the same place and same time simultaneously within the stipulated date and time schedule already fixed and there was no scope for the opposite parties to allow some more .time to the petitioners to submit their original College Leaving Certificates. It is further averred that the call letters were issued to 789 qualified/eligible candidates and all other candidates were present with the required original documents including C.L.C. but these five petitioners did not produce the required C.L.C./Transfer Certificate. The Service Certificates produced by petitioners 1 to 4 were upto 31.12.2004 and the counselling was held on 18th and 19th April, 2005. In absence of production of College Leaving Certificate, it was not possible on the part of the opposite parties to come to the conclusion whether the petitioners have taken admission in other institutes in or outside Orissa through All India P.G. Entrance Examination or some other entrance examinations conducted by other States. Therefore, the opposite parties have strictly followed Clause 15.2 of the Prospectus in order to ensure that no seat goes unfilled or remains vacant to the detriment of the other meritorious qualified students. Admission into all medical colleges of the State of Orissa is done through the counselling in which case no candidate is sure of this choice of subjects and college and, therefore, non-production of College Leaving Certificate will give them a free hand to leave subject and college they are admitted to, thereby keeping the seats vacant debarring other meritorious students. According to the opposite parties, during the previous years, some of the candidates who were allowed admission by giving undertaking for submission of C.L.C. at a later date, had taken admission in two different institutions at a time and after choosing from among the two they joined at one college, thereby the allotted P.G, seat of the candidate remained vacant for that particular session, which also deprived the other eligible candidates from taking admission in that particular subject as the same had been opted and blocked by the admitted candidates. Keeping in view such instance in mind such rules were incorporated in the Prospectus 2005 under Clause 15.2 and implemented. The intervenor-petitioners have also filed their affidavits supporting the stand taken by the opposite parties. Rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners.
4. The Medical Council of India has filed a counter affidavit referring exhaustively to certain decision of the Apex Court to emphasise that admission beyond the scheduled date is impermissible, the Court cannot direct admission after the Scheduled last date of admission and since in the present case, last date of admission was 31.5.2005, no direction should be given for admitting the petitioners even if it is held that the non-acceptance of the prayer of the petitioners was impermissible.
5. Sri Jagannath Pattnaik, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, submits that petitioners 1 to 4 are all in-service candidates and were in Government service, they were selected and were placed in high rank for admission to the P.G. Medical Course, they had also produced all original certificates excepting the College Leaving Certificate, which could not be obtained because of short notice in spite of application made to the respective colleges and as such, the opposite parties ought to have allowed them some time to obtain the C.L.C. and to take admission with an undertaking to produce the certificates at a later date. Submission is made that production of the College Leaving Certificate is not such a requirement that unless the C.L.C. is produced it will call upon the qualification or entitlement of the petitioners. They are all service holders under the Government and therefore, there could be no apprehension that they had not obtained the C.L.C. or were not eligible for the same. A reference has been made to a decision of a Learned Single Judge in Deep Kumar Thadani v. Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination (E & M), Burla and Ors. reported in 2001 (I) OLR 28 to contend that the authorities ought to have allowed the petitioners to produce the College Leaving Certificate at a later date after giving conditional admission. The question involved in the case under reference was whether if a candidate losses original mark-sheet, can he be denied admission even if a provisional certificate issued by a competent authority is produced. The original mark-sheet, according to the petitioner in that case was lost and an FIR had been lodged indicating such loss of mark-sheet. The Principal of the College, where the petitioner was reading, issued the Provisional Certificates indicating the marks secured by the petitioners in different subjects. In such situation, the Court held that there could not have been doubt with regard to genuineness of the mark sheet as pass certificate disclosed that the petitioner had appeared in those subjects. The fact of the present case is quite different and the decision referred to has no application to the facts of the present case. The Learned Counsel has further referred to the judgment in Sharmistha Chakravarty v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2002 (II) OLR 620. That was a case where the petitioner was denied admission in the Green Card Category on the ground that she was not a permanent resident of State of Orissa. The Court held from facts that father of the petitioner was serving in Orissa for long 32 years and the petitioner was only 18 years. She was all through with her parents in Orissa and, as such, ought to have been treated as the resident of the State of Orissa. In such circumstances denial of the admission to the petitioner was held impermissible, Sri Pattnaik, has referred to yet another decision of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Ors. reported in : AIR2004SC5043 . In that case, during scrutiny of papers at the time of counselling it was found that in the certificate given by the Zilla Sainik Board words 'not eligible' were written and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the certificate did not satisfy the requirement of reserved Ml category. A second certificate issued on 16.7.2003 was produced but the admission was denied The Apex Court found the documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of the case, there were some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. The Court in paragraph 7 thereof, however, held that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e., in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of the case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. In that case, however, it was held that the petitioner's father would not have notice the mistake committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the 1st Certificate dated 29.6.2003, but it does not mean that the petitioner should be denied her admission when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling.
6. The question that arises for consideration in the case at hand is that in view of the pleadings of the parties and submissions made at the Bar, whether non-production of College Leaving Certificate on the day of counselling and admission to the College would deprive the petitioners of their right to admission even though they had been duly selected. In other words, whether the opposite parties had rightly rejected their candidature for non-production of the College Leaving Certificate. Clause 15.2 of the Prospectus for Selection of Candidates for Post Graduate (Medical) Entrance Examination in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa (Annexure-1) stipulated that a selected candidate shall be required to produce all original documents including the Original College Leaving Certificate on the date of admission to the College. In the call letter dated 5th April, 2005 (Annexure-6), the petitioners were informed that they have qualified in the P.G. Entrance Examination for selection into P.G. MD/MS course in the three Government Medical Colleges of the State of Orissa for the academic Session 2006 and as such they should appear personally for counselling to be held at the Institute of Engineering, Bhubaneswar on 18.4.2005 at 9 A.M. for verification of the original documents and to exercise '-heir option for subject of choice and Medical College of preference. In the penultimate paragraph of the letter, it was mentioned that the candidates are required to produce the documents in original at the time of counselling for scrutiny, without which they will not be allowed either for exercising option and/or admission to any P.G. course. The candidates like the petitioners were required under Clause 10 to produce College Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate issued by the Institution last attended.
7. Clause 5 of the Prospectus prescribes the eligibility criteria of candidates. Under Clause 5.6, candidates who have already completed the P.G. (Medical) Course in any subject from any Medical College/Institution shall not be eligible to apply. Clause 5.7 stipulates that candidates already taken admission under All India/State quota cannot change their subject or college and under Clause 5.8 applicants who have taken admission in P.G. Medical Course in any of the three Medical Colleges of Orissa but have not joined or have discontinued after joining shall not be eligible to apply afresh as per the conditions as specified in the P.G. Medical Prospectus of the relevant year for selection of the candidate. Clause 13 speaks of counselling for allotment of subject and college. Under Clause 13.6 it has been stipulated that during the counselling the candidates must produce the original call/intimation letter along with the documents (copies of which they have already submitted with the application form) apart from any other documents asked for in the call/intimation letter. It may also be noted that under Clause 10 of the call letter dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure-4) candidates were required to produce the College Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate issued by the institution last attended. In the penultimate paragraph of the call letter in bold letters it has been stated 'no undertaking in any form in compliance to the above will be entertained under any circumstances'. The question, therefore, is as to whether production of the College Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate is a mere formality or that goes to the root and decides the eligibility of a candidate. In view of Clauses 5.6, 5,7 and 5.8, candidates who have either completed some P.G. Course in any subject or candidates who have already taken admission under the All India Quota/State Quota or applicants who have taken admission in P.G. Medical Course in any of the three Medical Colleges of Orissa or have not joined or have discontinued after joining shall not be eligible to apply afresh. The College Leaving Certificate, therefore, would be an important document, which will decide the eligibility of the candidate as to whether he had already undertaken P.G. Course earlier. In addition, not only in the Prospectus the petitioners were required to produce the College Leaving Certificate in original but also in the call letter itself they were asked and reminded to produce the College Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate issued by the institution last attended with a cause in that no undertaking in any form in compliance to the requirement of production of documents will be entertained under any circumstance. The petitioners, therefore, were required to produce the Collage Leaving Certificate, which admittedly they have not done. In such circumstances, refusal of opposite parties to admit the petitioners for non-production of College Leaving Certificate, which otherwise determines their eligibility for admission cannot be faulted.
In such view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ application and accordingly the same is dismissed.
J.P. Mishra, J.
8. I agree.