The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has ordered the State Government to pay damages of Rs10,0000 to the student for not being admitted despite the seat being allotted to a disabled student.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Satyam Verma.
The petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner had appeared in the Combined Pre-Ayush Test 2016 and was declared successful and secured a general category rank of 10570 and category rank 5345.
The petitioner claims to be disabled and that a Medical Board was constituted for testing the physical disability of the petitioner and the said Medical Board submitted a report finding the petitioner to be physically disabled and his physical disability is 50% to 70% and the report also indicated that he can take admission for Medical Education.
It is claimed that the information was given to the petitioner that the name of the petitioner appeared in the second list of selected candidates for counselling scheduled on 15.11.2016 against which the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs 5000/- as was required.
The petitioner participated in the second round of counselling on 15.11.2016 and was allotted the Sahu Ramnarayan Murlimanohar Ayurvedic College Bareilly, the respondent no 3 herein, in the course of BAMS.
The petitioner was directed to report on 22.11.2016 before the respondent no.3, which the petitioner did and submitted all the requisite documents.
Despite the petitioner submitting all the requisite documents, the opposite party no 3 informed the petitioner that he could not get admission as all the forty seats allocated to respondent no 3 had been filled.
The petitioner sent this information to the opposite party no 2. The petitioner kept on representing the matter before the opposite party no 2. As nothing was being done, the petitioner was constrained and approached the Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by the Court directing the opposite party no 2 to take a decision in respect of the grievances of the petitioner.
It is argued that despite the said command, no decision was taken, as such, a Contempt Petition was filed and only thereafter an order dated 11.10.2017 was passed, wherein it was stated that as the academic year 2016-17 has come to an end, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
It is argued that despite the petitioner having qualified in the examination and being eligible, the respondent no 3 for reasons which are beyond comprehension refused to grant admission to the petitioner.
Similarly, the respondent no 2 has taken a decision in utter disrespect to the rights of the petitioner to get the education after having qualified the prestigious examination in a most insensitive manner while the academic session has come to end and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
The respondent no 3 has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has taken a stand that the Director, Ayurved had informed the Counselling Board that during the personal conversation held with the petitioner, he expressed his unwillingness for admission against the seat allotted to him and therefore the Counselling Board gave its consent for refund of the security fee after obtaining his application.
Sanjay Bhasin, Senior Advocate assisted by Kshitiz Misra, the counsel for the respondent no 2 argued that the petitioner was granted provisional admission. He draws my attention to the writ petition wherein the petitioner was provisionally allotted a seat in the college.
On the basis of the said, he argued that the admission of the petitioner was provisional and has no vested right. He further argued that it was basically the fault of the principal who had notified the seat earlier allotted to one Mritunjay Singh, however as he did not undertake the medical examination, the principal notified the seat as vacant and the said seat was shown as vacant in the seat chart for the CPAT – 2016 Second Counseling, which was held on 15.11.2016.
From the documents on record, it is clear that the seat which was allotted to the petitioner was shown as vacant in the second round of counselling held on 15.11.2016 mainly on account of the fact that the student Mritunjay Singh did not complete the formalities and did not undergo medical examination. For the reasons best known, the Principal permitted the said Mritunjay Singh to undergo the medical examination on 16.11.2016 although he had not chosen to participate in the second round of counseling.
The Court noted that,
The facts that emerge are that the seat ought to have been shown as vacant and up for allocation in the second round of counseling in terms of the directions of the DGME which are quoted herein above. Once the seat was shown as vacant, it is not understandable as to how the same could be allotted to the said Mritunjay Singh without having participated in the second round of counseling.
The respondents have erred in denying the admission to the petitioner on the ground that no seat is vacant whereas at the time of second round of counseling on 15.11.2016, the said seat vacated by Mritunjay Singh was vacant and could be allotted only to the aspirants who had applied for consideration in the second round of counseling.
On one hand, the petitioner was not granted admission and on the other hand the counseling board while deciding the representation of the petitioner have recorded the statement of the Director Ayurvedic (Pathyakram Evam Mulyankan), Lucknow to the effect that he had personal talk with the petitioner and he has expressed his unwillingness to take admission for the allotted seat and seek refund of the security amount of Rs 5000/-.
In the light of the said decision, the stand taken by the respondent no 3 is that the petitioner was not given the admission as he had, in oral interaction, declined to take admission. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, there is a specific denial that the petitioner had ever refused orally or otherwise from taking admission. It is further argued that even the refund of security, as was mentioned in the decision, has not been given to the petitioner till date.
The Court observed that a perusal of the record reveals that there is nothing on record to justify the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner, in an oral interaction, refused to take admission. Even otherwise, there is no reason indicated in the counter affidavit as to why the security amount was not refunded or a letter written to the petitioner showing that he is being denied admission on account of his voluntary withdrawal along with the refund.
The Court further noted that,
The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was never called upon to file either an application seeking refund of the security or otherwise and in fact there is no official communication to the petitioner prior to filing of the writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the injustice done to the petitioner can now not be undone by directing grant of admission as the same was done in the year 2016-2017 and to that extent he agrees that the petitioner cannot be granted relief of admission at this stage. However, he presses the relief for being compensatory on account of the entire career of the petitioner getting adversely affected in view of the stand taken by the respondents.
He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krina Ajay Shah and others vs Secretary Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges Maharashtra and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 666 wherein the petitioner was directed to be compensated by an amount of Rs 20.00 lacs as Public Law Damages. It was further directed to be recovered from the erring officers. In the light of the judgment, he argued that the petitioner is entitled for being compensated on account of his career getting adversely affected.
On a pointed query, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, having got disturbed has given up his ambition to pursue the medical course, for which he had prepared despite his physical disability.
“Considering the facts as bare from the record and finding the stand of the respondents untenable in view of any material to support the said stand, the petition deserves to be allowed.
In the facts of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the Principal was wrong in granting admission to Mritunjay Singh after having notified the seat as vacant seat at the time of second round of counseling and the respondent no 3 was clearly in error in denying the relief to the petitioner and recording that the petitioner has agreed for refund of the security amount and is not interested in taking admission. As both the said authorities i.e the respondents no 2 and 3 are the limb of the State, the liability for wrong done by them lies upon the State”, the Court said while allowing the petition.
“The respondent no 1 is directed to pay damages which are quantified at Rs 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) to the petitioner with the liberty to the respondent no 1 to recover the same from the officers who may be found responsible. The said amount of damages, quantified above, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today on his moving an appropriate application before the respondent no 2.
The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall also be refunded along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment/realization. It is further directed that in case the amount of Rs 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) as directed above is not paid within two months, the petitioner would be entitled to interest thereon @9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment/realization”, the Court ordered.