Mayank Naniwal and ors Vs. State and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1137466
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnApr-11-2014
AppellantMayank Naniwal and ors
RespondentState and ors
Excerpt:
saw no.252/2014 // 1 // 19 d.b.civil special appeal no.252/2014 mayank naniwal & anr. versus state of raj. & ors.date of order :: 11th april 2014. hon'ble mr.justice dinesh maheshwari hon'ble mr.justice banwari lal sharma mr.rakesh arora, for the appellants. dr. p.s.bhati, addl. advocate general mr.hemant jain, for the respondent. by the court: the respondent no.4 is said to have not been served for want of fresh particulars.the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said respondent remains only a proforma party. having regard to the submissions made, while dispensing with the service on the respondent no.4, we have heard the matter on merits. after having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 03.01.2014 as passed by the learned single judge of this court in cwp no.12545/2013, which in our view, remains just and proper, particularly in view of the directions of the hon'ble supreme court. in the petition, where the petitioners-appellants stated saw no.252/2014 // 2 // grievance against the denial of admission in mbbs course, it appears that earlier, on 04.10.2013, the learned single judge, while issuing notices in the writ petition ordered that if the petitioners produced the original documents pertaining to them within a period of 10 days, the same shall be considered and appropriate college may be allotted to the writ petitioners as per their merit. the respondent-university appeared before the court and moved an application under article 226(3) of the constitution of india, inter alia, with the submissions that in view of the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in mridul dhar (minor) & anr. versus union of india & ors.: 2005(2) scc65 no admission to the mbbs cours.could be granted after 30th september of the relevant year. it was also pointed out by the contesting respondents that the admission was denied to the petitioners for their failure to produce original documents in the counseling as required. there were in all 5 writ petitioners.the matter was not pressed in relation to the petitioners nos.3,4 and 5 but it was submitted in relation to the petitioners nos.1 and 2, the appellants herein, that the admission could be granted on the seats of other categories with reference to the guidelines issued by the respondent- university itself. it was also submitted that in case of willful denial, the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in mridul dhar does not operate advers.to the writ petitioners.the learned single judge found no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-appellants with the observation that there was no vacancy in existence in the category in which they applied for admission. the saw no.252/2014 // 3 // learned single judge also observed that in view of specific guidelines of the hon'ble supreme court for admission on or before 30th september of the relevant year, no case for interference was made out. thus, while accepting the application filed by the respondent-university under article 226(3) of the constitution of india, the petition itself was dismissed. it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants that the vacancies do exist and lesser meritorious candidates have been given admission. it has also been suggested that even in relation to a writ petition filed by a lesser meritorious candidate, directions for admissions have been issued by the learned single judge in another writ petition. the submissions do not make out any case for interference. it is but clear that the petition as filed by the present appellants came up for consideration before the learned single judge only on 04.10.2013. it had also appeared in the order dated 04.10.2013 that the writ petitioners had deposited their original documents with the colleges already allotted to them in all india counseling. thus, it is absolutely clear that the appellants are otherwise admitted to other colleges and are pursuing their courses thereat. so far the respondents are concerned when the appellants-petitioners failed to produce the original documents, they cannot be faulted in denying admission to the appellants. in the given set of facts and circumstances, the question as to whether any vacancy exists or not looses its relevance for the fundamental reason that as per the mandate of the hon'ble supreme saw no.252/2014 // 4 // court, the admissions are not to be given beyond 30th september of the relevant year in such courses. the argument suggestive of admission to lesser meritorious candidates is also of little avail in the fact situation of the present case. we are clearly of the view that the appellants were not entitled for any relief in the writ petition as filed and the learned single judge has been perfectly justified in dismissing the same. the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (banwari lal sharma)j. (dinesh maheshwari).j. cpgoyal/
Judgment:

SAW No.252/2014 // 1 // 19 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.252/2014 Mayank Naniwal & Anr.

versus State of Raj.

& Ors.Date of Order :: 11th April 2014.

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the appellants.

Dr.

P.S.Bhati, Addl.

Advocate General Mr.Hemant Jain, for the respondent.

<<>> BY THE COURT: The respondent No.4 is said to have not been served for want of fresh particulaRs.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said respondent remains only a proforma party.

Having regard to the submissions made, while dispensing with the service on the respondent No.4, we have heard the matter on merits.

After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 03.01.2014 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.12545/2013, which in our view, remains just and proper, particularly in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In the petition, where the petitioners-appellants stated SAW No.252/2014 // 2 // grievance against the denial of admission in MBBS Course, it appears that earlier, on 04.10.2013, the learned Single Judge, while issuing notices in the writ petition ordered that if the petitioners produced the original documents pertaining to them within a period of 10 days, the same shall be considered and appropriate college may be allotted to the writ petitioners as per their merit.

The respondent-University appeared before the Court and moved an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the submissions that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr.

versus Union of India & Ors.: 2005(2) SCC65 no admission to the MBBS CouRs.could be granted after 30th September of the relevant year.

It was also pointed out by the contesting respondents that the admission was denied to the petitioners for their failure to produce original documents in the counseling as required.

There were in all 5 writ petitioneRs.The matter was not pressed in relation to the petitioners Nos.3,4 and 5 but it was submitted in relation to the petitioners Nos.1 and 2, the appellants herein, that the admission could be granted on the seats of other categories with reference to the guidelines issued by the respondent- University itself.

It was also submitted that in case of willful denial, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar does not operate adveRs.to the writ petitioneRs.The learned Single Judge found no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-appellants with the observation that there was no vacancy in existence in the category in which they applied for admission.

The SAW No.252/2014 // 3 // learned Single Judge also observed that in view of specific guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for admission on or before 30th September of the relevant year, no case for interference was made out.

Thus, while accepting the application filed by the respondent-University under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the petition itself was dismissed.

It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants that the vacancies do exist and lesser meritorious candidates have been given admission.

It has also been suggested that even in relation to a writ petition filed by a lesser meritorious candidate, directions for admissions have been issued by the learned Single Judge in another writ petition.

The submissions do not make out any case for interference.

It is but clear that the petition as filed by the present appellants came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge only on 04.10.2013.

It had also appeared in the order dated 04.10.2013 that the writ petitioners had deposited their original documents with the Colleges already allotted to them in All India Counseling.

Thus, it is absolutely clear that the appellants are otherwise admitted to other Colleges and are pursuing their courses thereat.

So far the respondents are concerned when the appellants-petitioners failed to produce the original documents, they cannot be faulted in denying admission to the appellants.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, the question as to whether any vacancy exists or not looses its relevance for the fundamental reason that as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme SAW No.252/2014 // 4 // Court, the admissions are not to be given beyond 30th September of the relevant year in such courses.

The argument suggestive of admission to lesser meritorious candidates is also of little avail in the fact situation of the present case.

We are clearly of the view that the appellants were not entitled for any relief in the writ petition as filed and the learned Single Judge has been perfectly justified in dismissing the same.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI).J.

cpgoyal/