Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

[s.khehar ; a.s.bopanna jj.] this writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the r1 & r2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. in so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install gps instrument compulsorily. in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

order: 1. the present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like m.b.b.s. 2. the writ petitioner is a member belonging to the scheduled tribes. she has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. she has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her secondary school examination (x class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year intermediate examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the board of intermediate education, andhra pradesh. like many other aspirants, she also appeared eamcet examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the medical stream of.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '907198',
			'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
			'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
			'sub' => 'Health Science',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '907198',
		(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kumari K Gayathri Vs the Convenor Eamcet 2010 - Citation 907198 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '907198',
		'acts' => 'NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 5 (b), 33, ',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No.24206 of 2010',
		'appellant' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Kumari K. Gayathri Vs. the Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'casenote' => '[S.KHEHAR ; A.S.BOPANNA  JJ.] This writ petition is filed under articles 22n and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the decision vide ann.-a taken by the R1 & R2 in the proceedings of the district task force committee held on 08.02.2010. In so far as it directs the lorry owners who transport sand to install GPS instrument compulsorily. In so far as the petitioner is concerned.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'M. Surender Rao, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER: </p><p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. </p><p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. </p><p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. </p><p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? </p><p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." </p><p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. </p><p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. </p><p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. </p><p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. </p><p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. </p><p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. </p><p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. </p><p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. </p><p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. </p><p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. </p><p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. </p><p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. ',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Convenor, Eamcet 2010',
		'sub' => 'Health Science',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '907198',
	(int) 1 => 'kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/907198/kumari-k-gayathri-vs-convenor-eamcet-2010'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Mriduldhar v. Union of India<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER: ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present writ petition highlights as to how distressful economic conditions of parents of otherwise meritorious students belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of society will come in their way for prosecuting prestigious professional courses like M.B.B.S. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 2. The writ petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. She has been maintaining a very high academic performance throughout. She has secured 529 out of 600 marks at her Secondary School Examination (X class) and 841 out of 1000 marks at the two year Intermediate Examination (10 + 2 course) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. Like many other aspirants, she also appeared EAMCET Examination 2010, which is the eligibility test for securing admission to the Medical stream of courses. She has secured an over all merit rank of 2944. When she participated in the second phase of counselling that took place on 22nd August 2010, she was allotted a seat under the Scheduled Tribe quota of the Convenor, by virtue of her merit ranking in the third respondent private unaided medical college. She has been granted 'provisional admission order' on 22nd August 2010. She is directed to report before the Principal of the college on or before 30th August 2010 along with provisional admission order. It was also specified in the provisional admission order that the candidates admitted in the government college shall pay the other fee, if any, as prescribed by the college and those admitted into private unaided non-minority medical colleges shall pay the fee as prescribed by the government. Further, importantly it has been noted therein as under:- The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5.00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences at Vijayawada. Thus, the writ petitioner was directed to report before the Principal, third respondent college, on or before 30th August 2010 which she did accordingly. It has been brought out that the writ petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'caution deposit' and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'special fee' and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'stipend fee' by the said college, thus totalling a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This is where the problem has begun. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The distressful economic status of the parents of the writ petitioner was such that they were not in a position to pay up Rs.20,000/- immediately. As a consequence, the writ petitioner could not deposit this money of Rs.20,000/-. An exemption has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, as she is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate, to pay the fee of Rs.60,000/- per annum, as per the policy decision of the State Government. It appears the writ petitioner has solicited time till 31st August from the third respondent college to pool up Rs.20,000/- and pay it up, but the efforts made in that regard have been futile. The college appears to have informed the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences that the writ petitioner did not join the college before the deadline and consequently there was a vacancy in the 1st M.B.B.S. course in their college. Accordingly the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences has treated the same as a vacant seat and notified it in the third phase of counselling undertaken on 26/27 September 2010. The writ petitioner was not entertained for the admission process at this phase of counselling. The next most meritorious Scheduled Tribe category candidate with rank No.3413 Ms. R. Bhavana has been accordingly granted provisional admission in the third respondent college and that the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-University also informs that the said candidate has reported before the third respondent on 28th September 2010 and joined the said college as well. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 4. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether respondents 2 and 3 could have justifiable treated the provisional admission granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 either to have lapsed or cancelled? ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The second respondent-University has been constituted in terms of Section 3 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (Act 6 of 1986) (henceforth referred to for brevity as "Act"). Section 5 (b) of the Act gave power to the said University to conduct a common entrance examination for regulating admission of students into various systems of medicine. Section 33 of the Act gave power to the University to make regulations consistent with the rest of the provisions of the Act to conduct its business. Accordingly the regulations for admission into M.B.B.S and B.D.S courses have been made. Regulation 12 thereof has some significance for our inquiry in this matter and hence it is apt to quote it: "JOINING TIME: The selected candidates shall join the college within the specified date. If any candidate fails to report to the Principal on or before the date specified by the University at the time of counselling the provisional admission granted shall be cancelled automatically without any further notice and no further claims will be entertained under any circumstances." ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. According to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent- University, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the entire process of admission into 1st M.B.B.S and 1st B.D.S courseswill have to be accomplished by the respondent- University latest by 30th September of each year. This norm is prescribed to ensure that there will be uniformity of standards of education across the State and secondly the midstream process of admissionscan be curtailed and the academic schedules drawn by the University can be scrupulously followed in the matter of imparting training to the students. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the failure of the selected candidates to report for admission before the college concerned, on or before the time and date specified by the University, renders the provisional admission granted in favour of such candidates to have lapsed automatically without any further notice to the student concerned and no claims can be entertained thereafter from such students in that respect. Otherwise, the process of admissions cannot be successfully completed for all the seats available, in time. Further, the seat matrix, which is a software based system developed by the University, will throw open the resultant seats/vacancies only to the next rankers than those who have already been granted provisional admission. Consequently if a candidate is granted provisional admission by the second respondent-University once, such a candidate will not have an opportunity to re-appear and stake a claim for admission into the same course concerned all over again in the next round/phase of counselling. By virtue of the operation of this system the writ petitioner though did appear before the second respondent-University when it undertook the third phase of counselling on 26/27 September 2010 she was not offered the same seat vacated by her in the third respondent college. In that process the next most meritorious candidate viz., Ms.R. Bhavana with rank No.3413 has been granted admission and this action of the second respondent/University is perfectly legitimate and does not call for interference by this Court. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have already noticed the conditions subject to which the provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 and the candidate was undoubtedly required to report before the principal of the third respondent college on or before 30th August 2010 and she was also required to pay the fee as prescribed by the government. There is no dispute about the factum of the petitioner reporting before the Principal of the 3rd respondent college. What was disputed is that, she did not pay up the fee, called upon by the 3rd respondent. But however, there is no material to indicate that the State Government, by any statutory exercise or otherwise, prescribed the caution deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- and special fee of Rs.5,000/- and stipend of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the students. Even assuming that the State Government has not prescribed the same and that these feeses are purely deposits in nature, which are otherwise refundable or repayable later on, whether non-payment thereof should disentitle a student of her legitimate right to get admitted to the course in a medical college concerned, is the question which requires to be answered now. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. As part of study and the training programme, all students who pursue courses of study in any of the science subjects, including human sciences, are bound to be trained in the laboratories concerned. There is bound to be equipment installed in such laboratories and some of the instruments or the equipment can be fragile too. Due to possible error or mistake on the part of the student concerned, such equipment or instruments in laboratories can either get damaged or shattered. In such an eventuality the amount deposited as caution deposit will come in handy for the college concerned to procure replacement in quick time. Therefore, caution deposits are collected by the colleges as a part of 'safety valve mechanism, in anticipation of possibility of damage or destruction to the equipment in the laboratories. To my mind, therefore, non-depositing of caution deposit on the day of admission itself does not result in lapsing or cancellation of such an admission. Going by the very content and context of the subject, caution deposit can be made even after a few days after the process of admission is completed. After all, the student will have to prosecute her studies in the same college for the next 5 1/2 years when it comes to the M.B.B.S course. Hence non-payment of caution deposit on the day of admission cannot be fatal to the process of admission and the student concerned can deposit the same within a reasonable period, thereafter. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. When we deal with the stipend fee component of Rs.5,000/-, it clearly baffles me for, every such student who completes successfully the M.B.B.S course has to undergo a 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship. Such students who are recognized as house surgeons will have to be paid stipend as a measure of defraying part of the expenses liable to be incurred by them. What is otherwise liable to be paid to such students after 4 1/2 years of study could not have been collected by a private college in advance. As at present advised, I have not found any provision under the Act, which enables a private unaided medical college to collect stipend liable to be paid to a house surgeon in advance. To my mind, no private medical college can collect such a fee. The stipends, which are liable to be paid to the house surgeons by the college concerned, cannot be collected from those very students. As is too well known, during the 12 months compulsory rotating housemanship, every student is required to attend on the patients in the hospital attached to the medical college concerned and render lot of quality assistance both to the clinical physician/surgeon as well as to the nursing staff. Therefore, stipends become payable to the students who are undergoing housemanship in recognition of this quality assistance rendered by such students. It is one way of appreciating the services rendered by these rotating house surgeons and such services should not be treated as gratuitous services and hence a small amount representing the stipend is sought to be paid. Therefore I do not find any justification for any private unaided medical college to seek to collect this stipend fee, much less in advance from the students. And, if it is not tendered to treat the admission of the student as to have lapsed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. When it comes to the question of payment of special fee, as a measure of policy for encouraging the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of our society, the State has formulated a policy to render financial assistance to them as well. Students who are pursuing courses of higher education and belonged to the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes are encouraged by the State to pursue their education notwithstanding their incapacity to garner financial support for prosecuting such higher studies. The State has undertaken to reimburse the fee to such students and also waives from collecting the fee sometimes. Since the writ petitioner is a meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidate, hence, the second respondent-University has not collected any fee from her at the time when she was granted provisional admission order on 22nd August 2010. Therefore, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- which the third respondent college required the writ petitioner to pay perhaps could be a provision which is reimbursable by the State Government. In such an event the third respondent will have to take up the issue with the State Government and solicit its reimbursement. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Even if it is to be assumed that special fees are not liable to be reimbursed by the State Government even in cases of economically distressed candidates, like the writ petitioner, the special fee of Rs.5,000/- is also such that that can be paid not necessarily on the day of admission itself and it can be paid even after few days. Further, these kind of special fees are utilised by the colleges for meeting the expenditure on extra curricular activities undertaken by the students, towards games and sporting events or other socially relevant inter active activities. These fees are not essentially intended to be spent on pure academic/research activities. Further, there is no regulation framed by the 2nd respondent-University making payment of the special fee as a condition precedent to validate the provisional admission order granted by it wholly based on the merit ranking obtained by the writ petitioner at the common entrance test. Therefore, in my opinion, non-payment of Rs.20,000/- to the third respondent college by the writ petitioner on or before 30th August 2010 cannot become a fatal one to deny her the right to prosecute the M.B.B.S course pursuant to the provisional admission order granted by the second respondent- University. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In this context it will be appropriate to notice the clause which has been incorporated in the provisional admission order dated 22.8.2010 which reads as hereunder. "The candidate who wishes to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31.8.2010 to the Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada only." Clearly the above condition stipulates that the candidate who wants to withdraw from the course may do so by submitting a written requisition along with the consent of the parent on or before 5-00 p.m. on 31st August 2010 to the Registrar of the second respondent-University. Until and unless a candidate wishes to withdraw from the course, no vacancy can be said to have arisen once the provisional admission order is granted by the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner has not withdrawn from the course by submitting any such requisition to the Registrar of the second respondent-University on or before 31st August 2010. There is no dispute on this factual count by the second respondent-University. Therefore, once a student reports before the Principal of the college concerned and produces the provisional admission order granted by the 2nd respondent-University, and in the absence of any such voluntary withdrawal of the candidature by the writ petitioner and vouchsafed by the parents of the candidate, the second respondent-University is not justified in treating that a vacancy has become available in the third respondent college to be filled in the 3rd phase of counselling by a local candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The second respondent-University therefore has committed an error in arriving at such a conclusion that the writ petitioner has withdrawn from the course thus causing a vacancy, solely based upon the information passed on by the third respondent in that respect. But for this error, however unintentional it might be committed by the second respondent, a piquant situation has arisen whereby another meritorious student who is the next best ranker, has been granted admission, as the seat matrix does not allow the higher merit ranking students, who were called in the previous phase(s) of counselling to stake a claim afresh. Now, the admission of Ms.R. Bhavana cannot be recalled or cancelled because she is not at all at fault. A balance therefore has got to be struck between the competing claims of the writ petitioner on one side, the second respondent-University and the third respondent private unaided medical college on another side and Ms.R. Bhavana on yet another side. It will be improper to cancel the admission of Ms. R. Bhavana and at the same time it will also improper allowing the third respondent to train more number of students than its authorized intake capacity. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In some what similar circumstances the Supreme Court has found a solution to this kind of problem in the judgment rendered in Mriduldhar v. Union of India1. In direction 11 issued by them in para 35 of the said judgment, it is said thus: "If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year." It would be appropriate to notice that in Mriduldhar case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a private medical college could have granted excess admissions in the quota meant for then, than its intake capacity. In the instant case, it is not the third respondent, which has granted any such excess admissions, and consequently it is not at fault. Because of the complexity and peculiar fact situation prevailing herein, it is the combined action of the second and third respondents, which has resulted in excess admission of one meritorious student to the third respondent college. Therefore, in the next academic session namely 2011-2012 the second respondent-University would do well to reduce the intake capacity of the third respondent college by one number, in so far as Scheduled Tribe category candidates of Convenor quota are concerned. That would take care to balance the total intake capacity of the third respondent college within two successive academic years itself. It would also consider allowing students with higher merit ranking also to participate, on their own volition, at least, in the subsequent phase(s) of counselling. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. Education has been recognized as an important tool, which brings about a wholesome reformation in the society not only from the social perspective view, but also its welfare perspective. No person of this country all because of distressful economic conditions should be deprived or prevented from prosecuting higher courses of studies, which they were otherwise legitimately entitled to prosecute. That should be the moving spirit behind the social change embarked upon by the State. The State has been endeavouring, tirelessly no doubt, to promote the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The cases of the present nature are those, which highlight the existence of such sections of our society that require urgent necessity for assistance to be rendered by the State. Perhaps, the State should step in immediately and take a policy decision to ensure that no similar bright students like the writ petitioner will ever have to face a similar situation in future. I hope and trust that all necessary agencies of the State will apply themselves and ensure that no student who toils so hard and secures admission, all on one's own merit, and has legitimate aspirations to prosecute prestigious courses like M.B.B.S will be denied the privilege to pursue them in future. Perhaps, keeping certain amount of money at the disposal of the District Collectors, to meet this kind of contingencies, would go a long way, in preventing the type of malady noticed in this case, I feel. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The provisional admission granted by the second respondent-University in favour of the writ petitioner on 22nd August 2010 shall be treated to have become final admission in favour of the writ petitioner and the third respondent college will collect the necessary fee from the writ petitioner giving her a minimum of two months time to do so, if not little more period. The writ petitioner shall be permitted and allowed to attend classes and prosecute the course without any let or hindrance from any source from tomorrow onwards, lest, as per the deadline set by the MCI, she cannot be enrolled for this year, in 1st MBBS course. I request the learned standing counsel for second respondent-University to communicate the gist of this order to the third respondent, so that the third respondent will enable the writ petitioner to prosecute her studies uninterruptedly. No costs. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the prompt assistance rendered by the learned standing counsel by securing necessary instructions from the second respondent-University in less than twenty four hours since the institution of this writ petition. I should also record that since the 3rd respondent college and the 4th respondent MCI, are only formal parties and are not likely to be impacted by this order, are not put on notice or heard. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action. '
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Registry may forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, for taking necessary follow up action.