Illegal Cancellation of MBBS Admission: HC Slaps Rs 1 Lakh Fine on Medical College, Principal
The Punjab and Haryana High Court
Chandigarh: Taking action against the illegal cancellation of admission of an MBBS aspirant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the Government Medical College, Amritsar and its principal.
Apart from this, the HC bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Sumeet Goel also directed the Punjab Government to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the petitioner student, while clarifying that the amount can be recovered from the officials who made the mistake.
"State of Punjab is directed to pay to the petitioner costs of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from today. Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- is saddled upon respondents Nos.3 and 4 to be deposited in favour of Poor Patient’s Welfare Fund PGIMER, Chandigarh for having wasted precious time of this Court which could have been utilized for hearing & deciding more pressing matters. Liberty is reserved in favour of the State of Punjab to recover the said costs, in accordance with law, from the concerned erring Official(s)," ordered the Court.
After clearing the NEET UG 2024 exam, the petitioner was allocated a seat under the Freedom Fighters category in the Government Medical College at Amritsar under the Government Quota. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a provisional admission slip dated 03.09.2024 and after completion of all the required formalities and document verification by the respondent No.3- medical College, a final admission certificate was issued to the petitioner.
However, after verifying all the documents and recommendations of BFUHS, the Principal of the GMC had issued a letter to the Registrar of BFUHS, seeking clarification regarding the petitioner's admission under the Freedom Fighters category. Even though the Registrar directed the college and principal to allow the petitioner to join the MBBS course for the academic session of 2024 with immediate effect, the college authorities again raised objections regarding the petitioner's admissions.
Meanwhile, the RGUHS Registrar reiterated its earlier directions to permit the petitioner to join the course. Despite this, the college authorities cancelled the petitioner's admission on 11.12.2024 based on the letter dated 14.09.1995. It was mentioned in this letter that the benefits of the Freedom Fighter quota could not be extended to the adopted children of Freedom Fighters who already have biological children.
Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High court and the petitioner's counsel argued that the documents including the certificate endorsing certifying him as the grandson of a freedom fighter, were duly uploaded on the online portal during the counselling process and these documents were duly verified by the authorities and accordingly, the petitioner was issued a provisional admission slip and later a final admission certificate.
The counsel argued that despite clear directions from RGUHS allowing the petitioner to join the college, the college principal arbitrarily cancelled his admission without any authority.
Referring to the letter dated 14.09.1995, the counsel argued that those instructions were prospective in nature and did not apply to the petitioner, whose father was certified as a son of a freedom fighter in 1991. Further, referring to the notification dated 10.03.2023 confirming that all the children and grandchildren of the freedom fighters were eligible for 1% reservation, the counsel argued that administrative instructions cannot override a statutory notification and any distinction made between an adopted and a biological child was arbitrary and illegal. It was further highlighted that the arbitrary cancellation of the admission caused the petitioner irreparable harm, especially when the NEET 2024 counselling period had expired.
On the other hand, the State counsel submitted that the principal initiated an inquiry after receiving a complaint against the petitioner. During the inquiry, additional documents were sought from the father of the petitioner, who submitted the Adoption deed, which explicitly mentioned that the adopting father Shri Boorh Singh had five daughters. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Department of Freedom Fighter for an opinion. In response, the Department of Freedom Fighter referred to two letters, especially letter dated 14.09.1995, which stipulates that the benefits of the Freedom Fighter quota cannot be extended to the adopted children of Freedom Fighters who already have biological children.
Referring to this letter, the State counsel argued that as per the 1995 letter, which introduced the policy for adopted children, the benefits could not be afforded to the petitioner,r who was born in 2006 i.e. after the issuance of the policy.
While considering the matter, the HC bench perused the Prospectus dated 09.08.2024 issued by the State of Punjab for admission to MBBS/BDS courses-in Medical & Dental Institutes in the State of Punjab, for the Session 2024 onwards. It also took note of the 1995 letter which is addressed to the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Punjab, Secretary of Punjab Public Services Commission, Secretary of Subordinate Services Selection Board of Punjab and all SemiGovernment Organizations under Government of Punjab.
At this outset, the bench observed, "The Prospectus in question contains clear and specific reservation criteria. By no stretch of legal imagination, the said communication/letter can be read to be qualifying, in any manner, the reservation criteria provided for in the prospectus in question."
The court relied on the case of Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997 and noted, "Thus, the inescapable conclusion that emerges upon a meticulous examination of the Clause 24 of the Prospectus, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of established legal principle affirming that a prospectus carries the force of law and must be adhered to without deviation, is that the 1995 letter is to be considered otiose for ascertaining the reservation criteria for courses governed by the Prospectus. It is, therefore, that the reservation scheme outlined in the Prospectus takes precedence and holds primacy over the reservation framework prescribed in the year 1995 letter. The Prospectus being a binding legal document, cannot be supplanted or undermined by an antedated administrative letter (1995 letter) which explicitly stands inoperative owing to a specific provision, in the form of Clause 24, contained in the Prospectus."
Further, the Court highlighted that the "Rules of Game" must not be changed once the game has begun, during the course of game or after the game has been played.
"Such course of action is impermissible in law. Ergo, the plea raised by State of Punjab that reservation criteria/condition as contained in the Prospectus in question is circumscribed by the letter/communication dated 14.09.1995 is misfounded and, hence, calls for rejection," the bench opined.
The Court noted that Clause 15(x) of the Prospectus encapsulating reservations for children/grandchildren of freedom fighters is drafted in clear and unequivocal terms. It explicitly provides for 1% reservation in favour of children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, without drawing any distinction between adopted and biological children/grandchildren.
"The language of the Clause is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative deviation, ensuring that the benefit of reservation is equally extended to all the eligible children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, irrespective of their biological status. This demonstrates the intent to provide uniform reservation without any discrimination between the adopted and biological children/grandchildren," the HC bench noted at this outset.
Further, the Court referred to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 stating that "the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption"
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Sitabai and another vs. Ramchandra, noting that the effect of adoption under HAMA 1956 is to bring out severance of all ties of the child given in adoption, in the family of his or her birth.
"Thus, the distinction sought to be drawn by the State of Punjab, on the basis of the beneficiary in question being an adopted child or a biological child, is fallacious. Hence, the rationale pleaded by the State of Punjab, to justify the cancellation of admission of the petitioner is sans merit and, therefore, deserves rejection," held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order cancelling the admission of the petitioner. Before parting, the HC bench also observed that "In discharging its role as a litigant, the State must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims indiscriminately. The State must exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be discharged with a sense of responsibility. The Constitutional framework envisions the State as a Welfare State, which is inherently obligated to act in the best interest of its citizens. In litigation involving the State and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the State’s conduct. Unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity."
Pointing out how the Courts are choked with litigation, the HC bench observed, "Frivolous and groundless dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the overburdened infrastructure. Productive resources, which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes, are dissipated in pursuing worthless cause(s). In our country, the State is the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer. The present case is an illustration of, how litigations are pursued on behalf of the State, in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion."
Holding that the authorities must be imposed costs, it further ordered, "The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance & judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system. This tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of exemplary costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate to saddle the concerned authorities with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature."
To view the HC order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-hc-amritsar-med-college-271915.pdf
