@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThis writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking for a direction to the second Respondent to include her name in the merit list so as to enable her to attend the counseling to pursue her M.B.B.S., degree course.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that she appeared for the +2 examination (Group-I containing the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Maths and Biology) held during March 2011 and passed and secured 1108 marks out of 1200 marks. She belongs to Scheduled Caste community. She is the first person in her family to pursue the Graduation course. She obtained application for admission to M.B.B.S., course from the second Respondent, at free of cost, by producing her community certificate. For the Scheduled Caste Community, the cut off marks fixed was 188.50 whereas, she secured 189.25 marks and thus, she is entitled to participate in the counseling for M.B.B.S.
3. According to the Petitioner, she had submitted the application form in time. While so, when the merit list was published by the second Respondent in their website on 22.06.2011, the name of the Petitioner was found missing. On enquiry, she was told that her application did not contain the community certificate. Therefore, she requested the Respondents to recheck the application form, as she enclosed the same. But all her efforts went in vain. Hence, she rushed to this Court on 23.06.2011 with the present writ petition praying for a direction to the second Respondent to include her name in the merit list, so as to enable her to attend the counseling to pursue M.B.B.S. Course.
4. The Respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 29.06.2011 refuting the allegations made by the Petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the Petitioner has failed to enclose the documents as contemplated under Clause 19 of the prospectus and therefore, her application was rejected on the ground of "no enclosures".
5. Heard the submissions made on either side.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner enclosed all the relevant documents, as required under Clause 19 of the prospectus. Even according to the Respondents, the details contained in the O.M.R. Sheet as well as the details contained in her application form tallied, without any discrepancy. When the Petitioner affixed her passport size photograph in the application form, besides enclosing self addressed and sufficiently stamped envelopes, she had No. reason for not enclosing the documents. The learned Senior Counsel submits that thousands of candidates dropped their applications in the drop box kept in the second Respondent''s office and the applications are not verified at the time when they were dropped in the drop box. When thousands of applications were taken up together for scrutiny, it is possible that the enclosures could have been misplaced. It is stated that when the Petitioner produced the community certificate at the time of obtaining application form itself, there is No. reason for not enclosing even the community certificate. Furthermore, the documents that are required under Clause 19 of the prospectus are not the original documents and are only attested copies. The crucial details relating to the marks obtained in the +2 examination and other details are provided in the application form as well as in the O.M.R. Sheet. Therefore, the Respondents are not justified in rejecting the application outright. Even if the Petitioner has not enclosed the attested copies of the documents, she should have been asked to provide the same within a reasonable time before commencing the counseling, so that the defects could be cured by the Petitioner. It is stated that in the case of the candidates who appear for the Group-I Services examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, all defects are not treated as incurable and certain defects are curable and invalidation was resorted to only in certain cases. If even the candidates appearing in Group - I Services are given such concession, a student, at the tender age should not be deprived of her right to pursue higher educational career by rejecting the application for the alleged non-enclosure of documents.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that for admission in the Engineering Colleges, the students are given opportunity, when their applications are rejected and those students could rectify the defects and thereafter, they would be enlisted for the counseling. In the case of the Petitioner, she was not informed about the rejection of her application and she was not aware as to why she was not called for counseling.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has strenuously argued that the Respondents have strictly followed the procedures laid down in the prospectus. Since the Petitioner failed to enclose the required documents, the same was rejected in accordance with Clause 1(b) and 14(a) of the prospectus, for which the Respondents could not be blamed and it is the Petitioner, who alone is responsible for her application being rejected for not enclosing the required documents. In any event, the counseling is half-way through and if the Petitioner is now included in the counseling, that could upset the ongoing counseling. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has No. legal and enforceable right to seek a direction for including her name in the merit list and to permit her to participate in the counseling, particularly, when the application of the Petitioner was rejected in accordance with the aforesaid clause of the prospectus. It is submitted that all the 199 students, whose applications were rejected for not enclosing the required documents were treated equal and therefore, the Petitioner alone could not be shown any concession or sympathy.
9. The learned Advocate General has produced the entire file which contains the original application form of the Petitioner along with the O.M.R. sheet, for perusal of this Court. The learned Advocate General has also submitted the list of 199 students including the Petitioner, whose applications were rejected for not enclosing the required documents with the marks details.
10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials placed before this Court.
11. The Petitioner appeared for the +2 examination during March 2011 and passed the same with 1108 marks out of 1200 marks. Her marks for admission to M.B.B.S. Course is 189.25, while the cut-off marks for S.C. Category is 188.25. She belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Admittedly, the Petitioner has secured more marks than the cut off-marks prescribed for Scheduled Caste community. The reason for not including her name in the merit list and not calling her for counseling is that her application was defective, as there were No. enclosures. That is, according to the Respondents, the Petitioner should have enclosed the following documents, as per Clause 19 of the prospectus.
(a) Mark Sheet of H.S.C. (Academic) examination
(b) Transfer Certificate
(c) Nativity Certificate
(d) Permanent Community Certificate
(e) X Standard Mark Sheet
(f) Certificate for proof of study from VIII standard to XII Standard
(g) H.S.C. Hall Ticket
(h) First Graduate Certificate (if applicable)
(i) Special Category form(s) with Demand Drafts and relevant certificates (if applicable)
The aforesaid documents should be enclosed by the candidates, along with the application form, who have applied for M.B.B.S. Course.
12. Clause 1(b) and 14 of the prospectus are extracted hereunder, as those clauses are heavily relied on by the learned Advocate General.
1(b) The candidates shall ensure that the completed application form with all particulars and enclosures reaches the Selection Committee within the date and time specified. Applications received by Speed Post / courier or any other means, after the last date & time will not be accepted irrespective of the date of booking.
14.(a) Application with incomplete or insufficient particulars or without enclosures or those received after the last date mentioned will be summarily rejected without intimation to the candidate.
(b) Filled up applications without the signature of the candidates will be rejected.
13. On a perusal of the application form, it is seen that there is a seal on the top of the application form, which shows that the application was issued to SC candidate. This fact tallies with the averment made by the Petitioner that the application was issued based on the community certificate produced by her. The check list contains three titles. The first title relates to "Data", which is the general instructions to candidates to see that the datas'' as stated in the check list are filled up. The second title relates to "Supportive Documents" and the case of the Respondents is that the documents were not enclosed. The third title relates to "Miscellaneous", wherein the students were asked to affix their passport size photograph on the application form duly attested, and to provide self addressed and sufficiently stamped acknowledgment card and also three self addressed envelopes. The Petitioner complied with the requirement of first and third titles. But none of the supporting documents as mentioned in title 2 of the check list were enclosed along with her application form.
14. According to the Petitioner, since she complied with titles 1 and 3 of the check list, there is No. reason for not complying with title 2 of the check list. It is also stated that the requirement was only to produce the attested copies of certificates as per Clause 19 of the prospectus and the originals were not to be produced.
15. It is also a fact that thousands of students made applications for M.B.B.S. Course. The applications were dropped in the drop box kept in the office of the second Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that she dropped her application form in the drop box. The applications were also received through post. In view of the large number of applications, there is also a possibility that the enclosures could have been misplaced or sometimes, the candidates may not have enclosed the documents. For example, in the case of admission to B.E., course, the applications without enclosures are rejected with a direction to rectify the same. In the case of M.B.B.S. course, the same procedure is not followed.
16. Clause 14 of the prospectus makes it clear that the application with incomplete or insufficient particulars or without enclosures or those received after the last date mentioned will be summarily rejected without intimation to the candidate. While the candidates applied for B.E. Course are given intimation, the same yardstick is not followed in the case of the candidates who have applied for M.B.B.S. Course. However, the prospectus in relation to B.E., course is not produced before this Court. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, the summary rejection of application for incomplete or insufficient particulars or without enclosures could cause serious harms to the candidates, who are at the tender age and who would like to pursue their higher studies. It is a different matter if the application is rejected on the ground that the same was received after the last date. But the Petitioner submitted her application form well within the time prescribed, but somehow, with some alleged deficiency and hence, the same could not be treated with the applications that were submitted belatedly. Even in the case of the candidates, who have appeared for Group - I Services, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission does not invalidate their applications for all defects.
17. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 1063 and 1287 of 2009 (decided on 04.03.2011) and brought to my notice para 5 of the judgment wherein it is noted that for certain defects, the candidates were not thrown out of zone of consideration. When such a concession is shown even for the candidates who appear for Group-I Examinations, the students, who are seeking admission to professional courses, should be given some leniency to rectify their mistakes. There are students who come from rural background and there are also students, who are the first in their families to pursue higher education. They should be given opportunity to rectify the curable defects and their applications should not be rejected arbitrarily.
18. In the present case, the Petitioner has averred that she is the first person in her family to pursue the Graduation course.
19. In fact, the learned Advocate General is fair in his submissions that Clause 14 of the prospectus would be suitably amended in next year and for the future years informing the students about the rejection of their applications and giving opportunity to rectify the defects so as to participate in the counseling. It is further submitted that in future years at least they could be accommodated at some point of the counseling or on the last date of counseling. But in the present case, so long as the prospectus stands as on today, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
20. At this juncture, the learned Advocate General submits that the applications of 199 candidates, including the Petitioner, were rejected on the ground of "no enlosures" and if any concession is shown to the Petitioner herein, the same will open the flood gates.
21. The learned Advocate General produced the details of marks obtained by those 199 candidates, whose applications were rejected on the ground of "no enclosures". On perusal, it is found that out of 199 candidates, 47 candidates belongs to Scheduled Caste. Out of 47 candidates, the Petitioner and other person alone have secured more marks than the cut off marks and Ors. are not coming under the zone of consideration at all. In the same way, none of the B.C., and O.C.., candidates whose applications were rejected, have secured higher marks than the cut off marks and therefore, they could not come under the zone of consideration and only one M.B.C. candidate, secured higher marks than the cut off marks. Thus, in my view, out of 199 candidates, 3 candidates including the Petitioner alone are prejudiced due to non enclosure of relevant documents. Hence, the same could not open the flood gate as contended by the learned Advocate General.
22. The submission made by the learned Advocate General looks attractive, but on deeper scrutiny, it lacks merit and thus I am not persuaded by the submission. There is a possibility that the documents could have been misplaced. The prospectus contemplates that No. intimation could be made to the candidates whose applications were rejected. In this case also, the rejection was not intimated. When the Petitioner on seeing that her name does not find place in the merit list, though she secured more than the cut off marks, approached this Court. Clause 14 of the prospectus contemplates rejection of application for all defects and No. distinction is made between the one that could be cured and another that could not be cured. That is, the application rejected for submitting the same after last date could not be compared with some curable defects, such as No. enclosures of attested copies of documents, particularly when the details of marks and other relevant details are found in the application form and O.M.R. Sheet and the original documents have to be produced only on admission. Hence, Clause 14 is arbitrary. In fact, the learned Advocate General also admits the same, but he states that necessary changes could be made in the future years and this year admission should not be disturbed. I am not inclined to agree with such submission.
23. The counseling commenced on 30.06.2011 and the Petitioner approached this Court on 23.06.2011, that is, prior to the commencement of the counseling. However, counter affidavit dated 29.06.2011 has been filed by the Respondents only on 06.07.2011. The counseling ended on 06.07.2011 as far as the Government Medical Colleges are concerned. The candidates, who secured marks in between 188.25 and 189.25 could have got admission in the Government Medical Colleges. But the Petitioner''s application was rejected due to her fault or due to the misplacing of the documents. The Petitioner does not seek to quash the admissions made so far. She only seeks permission to participate in the on going counseling.
24. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the Petitioner should be included in the merit list and should be permitted to participate in the counseling hereafter. But however, as already stated, the candidates, who were already admitted in the Government Colleges, should not be disturbed. Hence, while directing the Respondents to include the name of the Petitioner in the merit list so as to enable her to participate in the counseling, I make it clear that she is permitted to participate in the counseling that has to take place from tomorrow (i.e., 08.07.2011) and the students, who obtained lesser marks than the Petitioner and who have already been admitted through counseling that had already taken place, should not be disturbed. The Respondents are also directed to effect necessary changes in Clause 14 of the prospectus in accordance with the submissions made by the learned Advocate General for coming years.
25. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No. costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
