JAILATA BAGHEL v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2020-11-25. JAILATA BAGHEL v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2943 of 2020 Jailata Baghel D/o Shri Sohanlal Baghel Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Shahketta, Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2. Chairman National Testing Agency (NTA), C-201A/8, Sector-62, IITK Outreach Centre, Noida-201309 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Director, Directorate of Health Education, Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhawan Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. President, Counselling Committee, Directorate of Health Education, Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhawan Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Anish Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.
1/UoI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General For Respondent No. 2 : Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General _____________________________________________________________________ AND Writ Petition (C) No. 2975 of 2020 Pintu Ram S/o Late Shri Sudru Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Bade Karli, Tahsil Gidam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Medical Education, Old Nurses Hospital, D. K. S. Bhawan Parisar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Akash Pandey and Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocates.
For Respondents/State : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 25. 11. 2020 1. Denial of the chance to participate in the counselling process for admission in the Medical Course UG 2020 in the Scheduled Tribe (for short 'the ST') category by the Respondents for having filled up the online application with reference to claim under the Economically Weaker Section (for short 'the EWS') category, made the Petitioners to file the above writ petitions. In the former case i. e. WP(C) No. 2943 of 2020, while seeking for a direction to the Respondents to consider the candidature of the Petitioner under the ST category and conduct fresh counselling, the relevant Rule i. e. 7(i) of Annexure P/1 Rules i.
e Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bhautik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam - 2018, is sought to be declared as ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India, insofar as the said Rule provides that once the application form has been submitted, no further changes can be made in the application. In the latter case i. e. WP(C) No. 2975 of 2020, there is no challenge to the Rules. 2. We heard Shri Anish Tiwari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri st Ramakant Mishra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 1 nd Respondent/Union of India, Shri P. R. Patankar, the learned counsel for the 2 Respondent and Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Advocate rd th General appearing on behalf of the 3 to 5 Respondent/State in WP(C) No. 2943 of 2020. As far as WP(C) No.
2975 of 2020 is concerned, we heard Shri Mayank Chandrakar and Shri Akash Pandey, the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Shri Chandresh Shrivatava, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents/State. 3. The common case of the Petitioners is that they are members of ST category and are residing in a far remote village without much access to internet. They completed +2 level and participated in the NEET examination, in which the Petitioner {in WP(C) No. 2943 of 2020} scored a total of 424 marks out of 720; whereas the other Petitioner {in WP(C) No. 2975 of 2020} scored a total marks of 346 out of 720. Both the Petitioners sought to register themselves by submitting their applications online. According to them, because of some technical fault of the server, their relevant category as 'ST' was not appearing on the screen, but for showing the category as 'EWS', to proceed with.
It is also pointed out that the applications were caused to be submitted through the facility available in a nearby online shop. Instead of showing the category as 'ST', it came to be shown as 'EWS'. It is further pointed out that in all other proceedings including the application for participation in NEET, admit cards and such other documents produced, their caste status is shown as 'ST' and there could not have been any ambiguity in this regard. Inspite of the eligibility of the Petitioners to be given admission in the first round of counselling itself, by virtue of the higher marks, it is submitted that their candidature is rejected with reference to Rule 7(i) of the Annexure P/1 Rules and less meritorious candidates belonging to the 'ST' category have been given admission. This made the Petitioners to the approach this Court by filing the writ petitions, as aforesaid. 4. Shri Anish Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner {in WP(C) No.
2943 of 2020} submits that the impugned (Annexure P/1) Rule is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the Petitioner being not much familiar with computer and being a member of 'ST' category, coming from a far remote village, ought not to have been ousted from the field of selection with reference to the mistake in the online application for registration in the counselling, more so, when all other documents before the Respondents clearly showed that the Petitioner belonged to the 'ST' category. That apart, the Petitioner might not be put to hardships because of the fault in the server, which only showed the option category as 'EWS' and this technical th glitch is discernible from Annexure P/8 notice issued by the 4 Respondent on 11. 11. 2020.
According to the learned counsel, the only way of filling the application form for counselling was by 'online' and a person like the Petitioner who has suffered much economic backwardness all throughout the life, cannot be expected to be well versed with the modern technology/internet. The mistake was only a human error and the impugned (Annexure P/1) Rules do not permit to undo the trivial mistake of a meritorious candidate and therefore, the same is unreasonable and hampers the concept of 'excellency in higher education'. Similar submissions are made by Shri Akash Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 2975 of 2020, though the validity of Annexure P/1 Rules has not been subjected to challenge in the said writ petition. Both the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the verdicts passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Sarla & Others; Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2019 (O&M) dated 22.
02. 2019 and a judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Others; {2016 (160) DRJ601}. 5. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the petitions and that the idea and understanding of the Petitioners as to the scope of Annexure P/1 Rules is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. He further submits that the challenge raised against the validity of the Annexure P/1 Rules, stating as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, is only a bald one; without satisfying the minimum requirements as to the circumstances under which a Rule can be challenged, as made clear by the Apex Court on many a times. Competence of the Rule making authority is also not under challenge and the only ground raised is that the said Rules do not provide for correcting the mistake appeared in the application and hence, it is unreasonable.
It is factually incorrect, as disclosed from Rule 7(iv) and also from clause (3) of Annexure P/7 under the heading 'vku&ykbZu iath;u vko';d tkudkjh' which clearly provides for correction of the mistake, in the manner as provided therein. 6. Rule 7(i) of Annexure P/1 which is put to challenge in WP(C) No. 2943 of 2020, reads as follows: "7- ¼i½ mijksDr mYysf[kr vuqlkj izkoh. ; lwph ? kksf"kr gksus ds ckn] vkWuykbZu vkosnu NRrhlx<+ jkT; dh lhVksa gsrq vkeaf=r fd;s tk;saxs A vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds le; izfo"V dh gqbZ ik=rk ;k vU; dksbZ Hkh tkudkjh tSls% ewy fuoklh] Js. kh] laoxZ] lhVksa dk izdkj] egkfo|ky; p;u ¼option½ bR;kfn vifjorZuh; gksaxs A vr% fo'ks"kdj viuh Js. kh] laoxZ p;u djus ds iwoZ vius okafNr izk:i esa okafNr le;kof/k ds izek. k i= dk fujh{k. k vo'; dj ysaA" 7. It is true that the said Rule clearly says that sufficient care and caution shall be taken while effecting the entries and exercising the options and that any wrong entry cannot be corrected.
However, clause (iv) of the very same Rule clearly provides that it could be got corrected if there is any mistake, in the manner as stipulated therein. For convenience of reference, we extract the said clause herein : "7- ¼iv½ vkWuykbZu dkmaflfyax 'kqYd ds :i esa vukjf{kr Js. kh ,ao vU; fiNMk oxZ Js. kh gsrq jkf'k :i;s 1000@& ¼:- ,d gtkj ek=½ rFkk vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vuqlwfpr tkfr gsrq :i;s 500@& ¼:- ikap lkS ek=½ rFkk vizoklh Hkkjrh; fu;rka'k gsrq :i;s 10000&@ ¼:- nl gtkj ek=½ lapkyd fpfdRlk f'k{kk dks ns; gksxh A ;fn jkT; ds vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa dksbZ =qfV gks tkrh gS rks vkWuykbZu iath;u dh vafre frfFk ds iwoZ la'kks/ku 'kqYd :- 1000&@ tek dj la'kks/ku dj ldsaxs A" 8. Attention of the Court is drawn by the learned Deputy Advocate General to Annexure P/6 notice dated 30. 10. 2020 as to the schedule of the UG Counselling 2020, which is extracted below: 9. It is pointed out with reference to Annexure P/7 dated 07. 11.
2020 that the online application for registration for counselling was to be done from 07. 11. 2020 (4:30 pm) to the last date on 12. 11. 2020 (11:59 pm). The candidates were also alerted as to the right to get the mistake if any, to be corrected online as per clause (3) under the head 'vku&ykbZu iath;u vko';d tkudkjh', which is reproduced below: vku&ykbZu iath;u vko';d tkudkjh 1- xxx xxx xxx 2- xxx xxx xxx 3- ;fn vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu iw. kZ djus ds ckn Lock & Submit Hkh dj pqds gS] rFkk vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa ifjorZu djuk pkgrs gS rks] ifjorZu gsrq ,MhV ¼Edit ½'kqYd :-1000@& ¼ :- ,d gtkj ek=½ tek dj] vafre frfFk rd ifjorZu dj ldsaxsA 10. This being the position, the contention of the Petitioners that no opportunity was available to the Petitioners to correct the mistake is incorrect, and that they had not filed any such application to get the mistake corrected at any point of time, despite the opportunity provided in the relevant Rules.
As it stands so, the challenge raised against the Annexure P/1 Rules, stating that it is arbitrary and unreasonable, is not correct or sustainable. For the very same reason, the verdicts passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra) are also not applicable to the case in hand. 11. It is relevant to note that the Petitioners have not mentioned anything with regard to the rights conferred upon them in Annexure P/1 Rules, as to the opportunity and circumstances and the modality for seeking correction of mistake, if at all any crept in while making the online application. There is no case that they have made any such application satisfying the requirement as stipulated in the relevant Rules within the stipulated time, but for some vague representation stated as preferred, that too, after expiry of the time limit. 12. After hearing both the sides, we are of the firm view that the Petitioner in WPC No.
2943 of 2020 has not demonstrated the alleged arbitrariness, unreasonableness of the impugned Rules or how the said Rule violates the Constitution of India, but for the vague averments; which by itself has turned to be wrong in view of the specific provision available in Annexure P/1 itself to have the mistake corrected, if any. Under Rule 7(iv) and as per clause i. e. clause (3) in Annexure P/7 notice, correction, if any could be sought to be effected in the manner as provided therein. This being the position, the challenge against Annexure P/1 Rules fails and the Petitioners in both the cases having not sought to effect correction of the mistake as to their caste status by pursuing the remedy as provided under the relevant Rules, cannot be heard to say that any of their rights is infringed in the hands of the Respondents. Non-consideration of the candidature of the Petitioners by the Respondents is quite in conformity with the Rules and the Respondents cannot be blamed on any count.
13. However, there is no dispute the Petitioners belong to 'ST' category, as borne by other materials/documents filed by them in support thereof. When other similarly candidates belonging to the ST category suffering similar backwardness could submit their applications showing their caste status correctly, they cannot be put to any disadvantage if any indulgence is shown to the Petitioners. It is a fact that there are only 'two' counselling exercises and if any seats are lying vacant, it will th nd go to the 'mop-up round', to be conducted between 17 to 22 December, 2020 in respect of the State quota.
If any seats are lying vacant under the 'ST' quota even after the second round of counselling, to be taken forward to the mop-up round, we are of the view that the candidature of the Petitioners who actually belong to the 'ST' category and have already registered for counselling (though wrongly showing their category as 'EWS' by mistake) could be considered for admission in the 'ST' category before throwing such seats open to be filled up in the mop-up round. This will cause no prejudice to the Respondents or any other candidate. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the limited relief, as above. Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Amit
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.