Dr. (Mrs.) Guneet Makkar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 14--admission to residency system post graduate course--publication of notice--no rules for inviting applications at national level--practice consistently followed--held, it is not violative of article 14.;since this practice is consistently followed and the same has been followed in the present case also therefore it cannot be said that by not inviting the applications at national level and not publishing the notice at the national level the practice is violative of article 14 of the constitution.;(b) constitution of india - article 226--admission to residency system post graduate course--applications form not submitted within last date--held, it would not be proper to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction and cause hardship to other students.;the last date means the last date only and if the date is relaxed then this will give rise to a lot of litigation as the applications of other persons which have been recived after the last date have to be considered and the action so far taken will have to be undone...it will not be proper to exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction because that will cause considerable hardship to the other students who were vigilant and who have filed their applications in time.;writ dismissed - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 163-a & 166; [r.m. lodha, shiv kumar sharma & ashok parihar, jj] award passed by tribunal under section 163-a nature of held, the award passed by tribunal under section 163-a of act under structured formula is a final award and once that award has been passed, no further award under chapter xii of m.v. act could be passed by the tribunal. the provisions contained in sections 163-a and 166 of act provide for two different modes but the two modes cannot simultaneously be invoked by the claimants. the claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under section 163-a or under section 166 of the m.v. act but not under both. the award under section 163-a is final and cannot be described as interim and no proceeding for compensation under section 166 can be undertaken once the award is declared under section 163-a. - ' this notice was displayed at the medical college udaipur as well as copies were sent to medical college at ajmer, bikaner, jaipur and jodhpur with the request to kindly arrange to circulate it amongst the interns of this college who are undergoing their internship in their institution. (1984)illj67sc .the submission of the learned counsel does not appear to be well founded, as it is the practice in all the medical colleges in rajas-?han that applications for registration in post graduate course are invited at rajasthan level only and applications are not invited at national level. he sent the papers which were received by the petitioner but for the reasons best known to the petitioner she did not did deposit the form well in time. once the petitioner's father came to know about the inviting of the applications within 5 days of the display of the notice and he in turn informed the petitioner, if little more afforts were taken the application of the petitioner could have been filed well in time. it is curious that when the father of the petitioner came to know about the inviting of the applications on 22-5-1986 of the notice dated 17-5-1986 knowing fully well the last date i. this exercise could have been been undertaken but in view of the fact that the petitioner's father knew it very well and he obtained the form and sent to her and even then she has not sent it in time, for such a person it will not be proper to exescise this extraordinary jurisdiction because that will cause considerable hardship to the other students who were vigilant and who have filed their applications in time.ashok kumar mathur, j.1. the petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the admission in post graduate course as per her merit and grant her admission in the academic session beginning from june, 1986.2. the petitioner after doing her m.b.b.s. undertook 1 year's rotating internship at general hospital, chandigarh in pursuance of permission accorded in this behalf by the principal and controller, associated groups of hospitals, r n.t. medical college, udaipur. after completing one year's internship she became eligible for admission in three years residency system-post graduate course.3. a notice inviting applications for admission to p.g. course was issued on 17-5-1986 and displayed on the notice board of the college, her father who was staying at udaipur came to know on 22-5-1986. he obtained the form and sent the same to the petitioner at chandigrah which was received by her at chandigarh on may 27, 1986. the petitioner immediately sent the form after filling up the same by registered post to the petitioner's father from chandigarh on 28-5-86. the same was received by the petitioner's father at udaipur and it was submitted in the office of the principal on 2-6-1986. meanwhile the last date for filing the form i.e. 31-5-1986 expired.4. a representation was also filed before the principal on 5-6-1986 explaining the circumstances for delay. but since the application sent by the petitioner was submitted after the expiry of the last date, she could not be admitted in the p.g. course. this action is sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.5. a return has been filed by the respondents and it has been submitted that a notice inviting the applications was issued on 17-5-1986 (annx. r1) and it was already mentioned in the aforesaid notice that 'the last date of receipt of applications is 31-5-1986 upto 5.00 pm sharp duly completed in all respects.' this notice was displayed at the medical college udaipur as well as copies were sent to medical college at ajmer, bikaner, jaipur and jodhpur with the request to kindly arrange to circulate it amongst the interns of this college who are undergoing their internship in their institution. since, the petitioner's application was received beyond time, therefore, that was not considered, it is also submitted that other applications which were received after the date of expiry of the last date were similarly not considered. it was submitted that if the last date is not adhered to when the process of admission will never complete and the academic session will by delayed. therefore, it was thought proper that the applications received after the last date were rejected. it was also submitted that some applications were received from candidates from mangalore, indore, dibrugarh (assam), hugali (w.b.), jabalpur and sambalpur are and were entertained.6. mr. mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications should have been invited at national level and not upto the level of the state. he submits that since the post graduate studies are undertaken at national level therefore the applications should have been invited at national level but same was not done therefore no proper publication of the notice was made and it is violative of article 14 of the constitution. in this connection, he has invited my attention to b.s. minhas v. indian statistical institute and ors. : (1984)illj67sc . the submission of the learned counsel does not appear to be well founded, as it is the practice in all the medical colleges in rajas-?han that applications for registration in post graduate course are invited at rajasthan level only and applications are not invited at national level. thus, this settled practice has been followed and that would not amount to voilation of article 14 of the constitution. it is also relevant to mention here that there are no rules whether statutory or administrative requiring the publication of the applications at national level. since this practice is consistently followed and the same has been followed in the present case also therefore it cannot be said that by not inviting the applications at national level and not publishing the notice at the national level the practice is voilative of article 14 of the constitution. learned counsel has referred to b.s. minhas's case : (1984)illj67sc which has no relevance so far as the present case is concerned. suffice it to say that in that case bye-law required publication, whereas here there is no such rule administrative or statutory requiring publication of the application, thus petitioner cannot derive any assistance from that case. learned counsel further submitted that the notices were sent to all the principals of the medical colleges where the students of udaipur were doing their internship and the petitioner also belonged to udaipur and she was permitted to do her internship at chandigarh therefore, she formed a class of all the interns of udaipur. when the notice has been sent to all the principals of four medical colleges at jodhpur, jaipur, ajmer, bikaner, she should have also seen informed about the applications for registration in the p.g. course. learned counsel submits this amounts to discrimination. i am not impressed by this argument for the reason that the petitioner and knowledge about the fact of inviting applications through her father. the applications were invited by the notification annx. r.1 dated 17-5-1986. the father of the petitioner came to know about the notice on 22-5-1986 and he informed the petitioner that application has to be filed. he sent the papers which were received by the petitioner but for the reasons best known to the petitioner she did not did deposit the form well in time. once the petitioner's father came to know about the inviting of the applications within 5 days of the display of the notice and he in turn informed the petitioner, if little more afforts were taken the application of the petitioner could have been filed well in time. it is curious that when the father of the petitioner came to know about the inviting of the applications on 22-5-1986 of the notice dated 17-5-1986 knowing fully well the last date i.e. 31-5-1986 the petitioner still proceeded in a leisurely manner then it is the petitioner who has to thank herself. so far as forming a class amongst all the udaipur candidates and she being not informal i do not think this one constitute a discrimination. it is not the case of the petitioner that she has been deliberately singled out. as already mentioned above that this is the precice which has been followed in rajasthan that the applications are invited from various colleges and notices are sent to the principals and that is sufficient compliance within the meaning of article 14 of the constitution. so far as the petitioner is concerned, she knew about the inviting of hpplications and the same was delayed, therefore, she cannot derive any benefit of her own negligence.7. the last date means the last date only and if the date is relaxed then this will give rise to a lot of litigation as the applications of other persons which have been received after the last date have to be considered and the action so far taken will have to be undone. the candidates who have already admitted will have to be dislodged. this exercise could have been been undertaken but in view of the fact that the petitioner's father knew it very well and he obtained the form and sent to her and even then she has not sent it in time, for such a person it will not be proper to exescise this extraordinary jurisdiction because that will cause considerable hardship to the other students who were vigilant and who have filed their applications in time.8. mr. mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a stay order was granted on 12-6-1986 granting provisional admission to the petitioner, but the same was not complied with and the provisional admission was only granted to the petitioner on 3rd of july, 1986 as such the respondents have committed contempt of this court's order and they should not be heard before they purge the contempt. learned counsel has referred to om prakash and anr. v. the board of school education for himachal pradesh and ors. air 1975 hp 571. i considered this aspect of the mater also but i do not think that in the present case a conscious attempt was made to flout the orders of this court. it is true that the order was passed on 12-6-1986 and the petitioner has been granted provisional admission on 3-7-1986. thus, the order of this court was complied with and no contempt of this court's order was committed by the respondents.9. thus, in the result, i do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.10. the parties are left to bear their own costs.