Sponsored Seats cannot be classified as General category: HC denies relief to DM Pediatrics Critical Care aspirant
Amaravati: Drawing a line between the Sponsored candidates and General Candidates, the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently denied relief to a candidate who had sought admission against a vacant sponsored seat at PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Noting that the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions for sponsored seat, the HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S Somayajulu noted, "Therefore, it is clear that the candidates who apply for the sponsored seats are a distinct category of applicants who have to fulfil certain eligibility criteria for being treated as a sponsored candidate and also have to assume certain responsibilities after the completion of the training. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fit into this clause. Thus the petitioner and the candidates for sponsored seats cannot be treated as 'equals' for the petitioner to allege inequality or a violation of constitutional rights."
The concerned petitioner appeared in Institute of National Importance Super Speciality Entrance Test (INI-SS) seeking admission in DM Pediatrics Critical Care course and secured fourth rank in the exam.
Raising the issue of non-conversion of a sponsored seat into a general seat, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in PGIMER, Chandigarh, there were 2 sponsored seats. However, none of the candidates were qualified for the seat. Therefore, the petitioner, who is a brilliant student otherwise, sought admission in the 'vacant' sponsored seat. However, the authorities rejected the request.
Following this, the petitioner approached the High Court, which allowed the petitioner to make a representation for the seat. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Supreme Court, which although did not interfere with the order passes, left open all the questions of law to be agitated including the issues about the (a) cut-off date (b) jurisdiction of the A.P. High Court etc.
Although the petitioner made a representation seeking a seat, it was rejected by the respondents and a revised notification was issued prohibiting allotment of sponsored seats for general seats. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court praying to set aside the rejection orders and allot one seat in the pending vacant sponsored seats. In fact, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner was willing to pursue this course without any stipend.
Addressing the issue of cut-off date, the petitioner's counsel claimed it to be a mere technicality and argued that no rule of right of the respondents would get violated if the petitioner joined after the cut-off date. Further the counsel argued that the petitioner has been diligently pursuing his rights and there relief cannot be denied to him on the basis of cut-off date.
Further arguing that leaving behind a vacant or un-filled seat in a prestigious institution would be a national waste of resources, the petitioner's counsel relief upon Supreme Court order in the case of Index Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
On the other hand, the counsel for the government, the Additional Solicitor General argued against the court's territorial jurisdiction. He also contended that cut-off date was a 'sacrosanct' date and it cannot be relaxed by the Court. Arguing that midstream admissions are frowned upon by the Supreme Court, he referred to the decision of the Medical Council of India v. Madhu singh and others, Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, and S.Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. Referring to the fact that the cut-off date expired on February 28, he contended that no order can now be passed in favour of the petitioner.
After taking note of the submissions by both the parties, the HC bench referred to relevant law and established that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
While considering the issue of cut-off date, the HC bench referred to the Supreme Court order in S.Krishna Sradha's case and noted,
"Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that unless all these factors are present in sequence or in conjunction, no relief can be granted to a candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also categorically held in the case that September 30th was the cut-off date and in no circumstances, the Court can order admission beyond 30th October of that year (1 month). Although this decision is pertaining to MBBS course, still it is an authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of cut-off date etc."
"If the facts in this case are viewed against the backdrop of these two cases, it is clear that the last date for admission into the courses was 28.02.2022. In the revised notice No.25/2022 dated 09.02.2022, a clause was included stating that candidates who applied for a general seat would only be eligible for a general seat and those who applied for sponsored seat will be eligible only for sponsored seat. There will be no merger of seats from general to sponsored or sponsored to general. This clause is also subject matter of challenge."
"It is thus clear that the petitioner is seeking a midstream admission on the ground that vacant seats in such courses should not be allowed to go un-filled only on the ground that a cut-off date has expired," noted the court.
"However, a deeper examination of the facts shows that sponsored candidates have to fulfil certain distinct eligibility criteria to be considered for admission. For example, the brochure and rules/procedures relating to the 'sponsored seats' at AIIMS, Delhi (respondent No.2) clearly states that the seat in D.M/M.ch course in which the candidate is being sponsored should not be available in the State to which the candidate belongs. A certificate to this effect signed by the concerned authority should be furnished. The sponsored candidate should also be employed by the sponsoring authorities for 5 years after the training is completed. The candidate should also be paid the entire emoluments by the sponsoring authority for the entire training period and AIIMS Delhi is not responsible for the same. They are also called as "Trainees"."
"As far as respondent No.3 PGIMER, Chandigarh is concerned, (1) the sponsored candidate should also be a regular permanent employee for at least three years with the sponsoring authority. (2) The candidate after the training should be employed by the sponsoring authority for atleast 5 years in the specialty and (3) the emoluments/stipend etc., will be paid by the sponsoring authority alone. Lastly, the sponsoring institute can only nominate one candidate for a specialty. Sponsorship is also accepted from Central or State Government departments, Institutions, autonomous bodies of State or Central Government and also Public Sector Colleges etc., recognised by the Medical Council of India."
"Admittedly, (since there is no denial in the rejoinder), these seats are created to provide training to in-service doctors, but would then return and serve the institution and also the general public throughout the country including remote areas where proper medical facilities are not otherwise available. As a matter of practice also State Governments/Central Governments and others have sent doctors from Government hospitals and dispensaries to get training and education in specific fields, so that they can return to the institution after the training and fill the lacuna in their knowledge by providing medical care in such cases and thereafter serve the country. The AIIMS states that sponsored candidates are sent from various States to fill the void or requirement in the hospitals, dispensaries and colleges."
"Therefore, it is clear that the candidates who apply for the sponsored seats are a distinct category of applicants who have to fulfil certain eligibility criteria for being treated as a sponsored candidate and also have to assume certain responsibilities after the completion of the training. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fit into this clause. Thus the petitioner and the candidates for sponsored seats cannot be treated as 'equals' for the petitioner to allege inequality or a violation of constitutional rights," read the judgment.
"This Court finds that in this case all the conditions are not fulfilled. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered as a sponsored candidate as he does not have the basic requisite qualifications including employment to be called a 'sponsored' candidate. The candidate has pursued his remedies without delay. However, there is no fault on the part of the authorities because they rightly relied upon the rule position to hold that the candidate does not fulfil the criteria of a sponsored candidate. There is no clear and apparent breach of the rules and regulations let alone the violation of right of equality and equal treatment. This Court has already held that sponsored candidates are a distinct class by themselves and cannot be treated on par with general candidate. The last date has also expired both under the original notification and the revised notification for January, 2022 sessions. The extra '30 day' period has also expired."
