Biswanath Rath, J.
1. In filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for admission of the petitioner into Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Training in the Government Schools of Nursing, Odisha keeping in mind the rank of the petitioner against Scheduled Caste category and the other related disputes.
2. Fact as revealed from the pleadings as well as submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was an applicant for admission in to Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Training in the Government Schools of Nursing, Odisha for the session 2014-2015, a course for 3 1/2 years. On receipt of the application of the petitioner, she was given reference No. 2939 along with the prospectus meant for admission into Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery (for short "G.N.M") Training for the session 2014-2015. From the prospectus it reveals that 50% of the seats are to be filled up through counseling as State quota and rest 50% are to be filled up treating the same to be Management quota and the percentage of the reservation seats are as follows:
"(i) 10% for Male,
(ii) 22.50% for Scheduled Tribe,
(iii) 16.25 % for Scheduled Caste,
(iv) 3% each for Physically Handicapped and Children of Ex-servicemen,
(v) 5% for G.C.H."
Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Website of the Directorate dated 25.10.2014 discloses that the petitioner was selected provisionally and her rank Number is 38 against Scheduled Caste category. Consequently the petitioner was asked to attend the counseling under 1st preference on 25.10.2014 at 8.00 A.M. Since the information was uploaded in the website on 25.10.2014 itself, petitioner alleged that this clandestine action of the Counseling Committee intentionally debarred the petitioner from attending the counseling. Petitioner received the information downloaded from the website of the Directorate of Nursing, a letter dated 16.10.2014 on 25.10.2014 indicating therein that the petitioner did not mention her postal address consequent upon which she could not be given the information of her short listing. Petitioner submitted that all other candidates received the letter of intimations through speed post on 20.10.2014. Petitioner alleged that no such letter of counseling for admission into 3 1/2 years G.N.M. course for the Session 2014-2015 was issued to the petitioner.
Clause-3 (i) of the prospectus provides for merger of seats in favour of unreserved category in the event particular reserved category of candidates is not available.
Clause-3(ii) of the prospectus provides that in case a seat is vacant in private institution after Central Counseling, the vacant seat will be merged in the Management quota of the concerned institution.
Petitioner further alleged that since she was prevented from appearing the counseling for no fault of her, seat meant for her could not have been merged under the above provisions and she should be given a seat in the G.N.M. Course for the Session 2014-2015
During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the worse, petitioner should be given a seat for the next session by treating her to be a duly selected candidate for the session 2014-2015.
3. Per contra, on its appearance, the Convener, G.N.M. Selection Committee and Asst.Director, Nursing (Administration), Directorate of Nursing, Odisha-opposite party No. 3 filed a counter affidavit, while admitting that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and 16.24% of seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates for admission into Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Training in the Government Schools of Nursing, Odisha and that the petitioner was provisionally selected, she got the rank 38 against the Scheduled Caste category but denied the allegation that the petitioner has been deliberately prevented from admission by not issuing communication through post. This opposite party objected the allegation of the petitioner on the premises that though the application form at Column-12 provides for information on present address for correspondence, no such address has been given for which they were not in a position to make any communication to the petitioner but however the informations were available in the website on 25.10.2014. Further since the opposite party No. 3 made a publication dated 22.10.2014 in the local daily newspaper "The Samaj, intimating all concerned that the counseling for admission into 3 1/2 years G.N.M Course for the Session 2014-2015 shall be taken on 24.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 to 31.10.2014, nothing prevented the petitioner to attend the office of the opposite party No. 3 and get all such informations. The opposite party No. 3 further submitted that the intimation letter of the petitioner dated 16.10.2014 was sent through speed post on 18.10.2014 but without mentioning the corresponding address, for which the letter remained undelivered. The opposite party No. 3 ultimately submitted that the counseling in the said post is over since 31.10.2014 and therefore, they are not in a position to give her admission. Even though notice was made sufficient to the other opposite parties, none of them replied to the above submission in the Court nor filed any counter to the allegations raised by the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no denial that the petitioner was an applicant for the Diploma Course for G.N.M. Training in the Government Schools of Nursing, Orissa for the session 2014-2015. There is also no denial to the intake in the different category including Scheduled Caste category, as mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition. There is also no denial by the parties that the petitioner was not only selected provisionally but was placed/ranked at Sl. No. 38 in the Scheduled Caste category. Now coming back to consider on the question of non-availability of the postal address of the petitioner and the consequence thereof, the opposite party No. 3 along with his counter has filed the application form for G.N.M. Course, 2014-2015 concerning the writ petitioner, the application form is available at Annexure-3 (Page No. 20) of the brief, at Column No. 11 the candidate is required to disclose his/her permanent home address, petitioner furnished the same which reads as follows:
"Villager/Town: BADHEI SAHI
P.O.: BUXIBAZAR,
Police Station: MANGALABAG,
District-Cuttack, PIN-753001."
Column No. 12 of the application provides disclosure of present address which remained blank. Column No. 13 meant for full name of Father/Husband and address which discloses the father of the petitioner as Arjun Behera, Address-Badhei Sahi, P.O.-Buxibazar, P.S.-Mangalabag, Cuttack-1, Pin-753001. From perusal of the application form and reading of Clause-11 and 12 together it clearly reveals that the petitioner has given her address at least at two places remaining the same. It further appears from the application form that the petitioner has the only address as permanent home address. The column for present address remained unfilled for the reason that the petitioner has no such present address except a permanent address. The present address column may be a requirement for the candidates, who have permanent addresses but stay in a different address otherwise known as present address. From the detail reading of the application form of the petitioner, it clearly appears that the petitioner has no other address except the permanent address. The application form of the petitioner if compared with that of the application form of one Sunely Sethy, another candidate, it clearly indicates that Sunely Sethi had an address other than the permanent home address and since she was available in the present address and as she was not available in the permanent address there was necessity for providing the present address. Further, from the submission of opposite party No. 3 it appears as if the petitioner had not provided any address at all. Since the petitioner has provided a clear permanent address at least at two of the places of the application form, the stand of the opposite party No. 3 that they were unable to contact the petitioner for her not providing the address is not only untrue but also contrary to the record itself. That too, from the record filed by the opposite party No. 3, it appears that the petitioner has given a complete address of her. Non-communication of the letter for attending the counseling to the petitioner by speed post is fatal to her not taking the admission and for no fault of her. Negligence in not communicating the notice for attending the counseling to the petitioner is solely attributable to the opposite party No. 3 and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the opposite party No. 3. Besides, petitioner had also made a specific allegation that the information of counseling with intimation to her positioning at Sl. No. 38 in the counseling were known to her at her place on 25.10.2014 itself which is also the date of counseling for which this court finds that there is a sufficient reason for the petitioner''s not attending the counseling.
5. Similarly, the submission of the opposite party No. 3 that the necessary communication was made to the petitioner through speed pos but without any address. Such submission of the opposite party No. 3 cannot be accepted in law as no speed post document be accepted by any postal department in absence of address on the envelope. This Court rejects such contention of the opposite party No. 3. May be the opposite party No. 3 has filed all envelopes together and the postal department has accepted all those packets without proper verification.
6. From the above, it is amply clear that the petitioner has been deliberately prevented from attending the counseling and thereby she has been kept outside the selection for no fault of her. Since she was positioned at Sl. No. 38 in the counseling set for, she had a clear chance of getting a seat. Even though this Court do not hesitate to issue a mandamus against the opposite parties for providing a seat to the petitioner in the Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Training in the Government School of Nursing, Orissa by taking out the last candidate admitted for in the particular course, but however considering that the 1st year session in the particular faculty is over, no separate class can be held for an individual and further considering the submission of Sri R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3 during course of argument that in view of mistake on the part of the opposite party No. 3 and since the admission process in the particular course for the year 2014-2015 is over since 31.10.2014, it may be given a chance to provide admission to the petitioner in the particular course for the year 2015-2016, further as a grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner particularly in view of no fault of the petitioner, this Court while allowing the writ petition directs the opposite parties to allow the admission of the petitioner in the Diploma in G.N.M. Course, 2015-2016. Necessary communication to the petitioner in this regard be made at appropriate time.
7. However, considering the deliberate negligence on the part of the Convener in the communication of the result which being a very highly qualified body, to prevent such grave mistake in future, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on the Convener for such negligence of the Convener-opposite party No. 3, which amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. However, with cost as awarded hereinabove.
I. Mahanty, J.
I agree.
