The admission of the following students to I M.B.B.S. Course were wrongly made because of bonafide clerical mistake. The names of the students did not appear in the admission list for M.B.B.S. Course. Therefore, the admission of these students made under order No. 1(3)C/No/JU/83/12668-61 dated 7th November, 1983 Miss Asra Sayeed; No. F. 1(3)G/HC/JU/83-84/12786-68 dated 9-11-83 only Vijay Ramawat and No. F. 1(3)G/MC/JU/83/13345-50 dated 25-11-83 Ashok Kumar Rathi is hereby cancelled with immediate effect and they can collect their fees.Int. No. Roll Name of candidate Father's name470 5387 Vijay Ramawat S.N. Ramawat471 5434 Asra Sayeed (Miss) S.M. Sayeed474 10124 Ashok Kumar Rathi P.D. RathiSd/-Principal Controller
Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on Geeta Misra v. Utkal University AIR 1971 Ori. 276, K.R. Shivdatta v. Government Medical College AIR 1972 Mysore 135, Anil Kumar v. University of Allahabad : AIR1973All442 , Pritamdas v. State : AIR1975Ori155 , and Bundelkhand University v. Laxmi Narain Yadava AIR 1983 All. 378.
7. Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the non-petitioners submitted that there was a mistake in admitting the petitioners and that mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. According to the Rules the petitioners could not have been admitted and so non-petitioner No. 2 was right in cancelling their admissions. Learned Advocate General pressed that all admissions made were purely on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates and no candidate securing less than 235 marks could have been admitted in M.B.B.S. against general quota list and since the petitioners' total marks obtained by them were 234, they were not admitted. The candidates who had obtained 234 marks and marks obtained by them in Science subject in First Year IPC Course were also brought to my notice i.e. R/3 was referred.
8. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General. It appears from Ex. R. 2 dated October 11, 1983 which is issued for Convenor Admission Boaid and Principal and Controller that the petitioners along with other candidates who had secured 234 marks out of 400 marks in P.M.T. Examination were required to appear for interview on October 20, 1983. There is no order of admission in regard to the petitioners issued by the Convenor, Admission Board (Selection Board). A perusal of Ex. R. 1 shows that the Office Order showing that petitioner Vijay Ramawat who was provisionally selected for M.B.B.S. Course was found medically fit and as he had deposited the college fees he was directed to report himself to the Professor and Head of Department of Anatomy/Physiology Biochemistry and P.S.M. of the College immediately for further instructions to attend the regular classes. Reference was made to the office Order dated November 7, 1983 of Associated Hospitals Jodhpur. It is clear that the admission List in regard to the vacancies were issued from time to time. It appears from Anx. 1 that the names of the petitioners did not appear in the Admission List for M.B.B.S. Course which was issued by the Selection Board. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Convenor, Admission Board and Principal and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals, Jaipur, had admitted the petitioners. The Principal, Dr. S.N. Medical College and the Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur, issued orders for admission of each of the petitioners on different dates as is borne out from Anx. 1, representing them that they have been admitted. In these circumstances the question is whether the Principal of Dr. S.N. Medical College and the Controller of the Associated Group of Hospitals Jodhpur could cancel admission of the petitioners when he himself asked them and represented that they have been admitted to M.B.B.S. Course and asked them to deposit fees. It is clear from Ex. R. 4 that they were medically examined and found fit and were asked to attend the regular classes. Could he cancel their admissions by issuing Anx. 1 dated December 17, 1983?
9. This has necessitated to read Clauses 4(D), (E)(F) and (G) of the Rules. They are as follows:
(D)(1) The eligible candidates will be admitted in the order of merit for the general as well as reserved seats (excepting the seats belonging to category (a) and (c) of Rule 2 judged on the basis of marks secured at the Pre-Medical Test.
(2) Candidates securing equal number of marks in the Pre-Medical Test will be admitted in the following order of preference-
(i) One who had secured more marks in Science subject of 1st year examination of the Three Year Degree Course, or its equivalent examination.
(ii) Among candidates securing equal number of marks in the 1st Year Examination of the Three Year Degree Course or its equivalent Exam, as also, those who have passed in lesser number of attempts will be given preference if there is a further tie, candidates securing more marks in Higher Secondary Examination or in its equivalent examination will be given preference.
(E) Interview By Admission Board : Candidates eligible for admission shall be called for interview by the Principal Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur to appear before the Admission Board constituted by the State Government. Interviews will be taken in about 10-15 days after the Pre-Medical Test result is declared. The list of candidates called for interview will be put on the notice Board of the SMS. Medical College, Jaipur three days before the date of interview. The candidates found unsuitable by the Admission Board will be rejected.
(F) Allotment of place of study : The Admission Board after duly considering the place of residence and preference given by the candidate in his/her application shall allot selected candidates to the various medical Colleges at its discretion.
(G) Medical Examination : A provisional list of candidates selected by the Admission Board will be put on the Notice Board of the S.M.S. Medical College Jaipur. No intimation will be given to the Candidates individually. All candidates provisionally selected will be examined by the Medical Board appointed by the Principal of the respective Medical College on the basis of criteria evolved for Medical Examination by the Principal regarding their general and physical fitness for medical studies. The candidates found unsuitable will be rejected. The decision of the Board in this respect will be final.
10. Clause 5 of the Rules is also relevant for the purpose which is as follows:
5. The Government reserves the right to admit or reject admission of any candidate without assigning any reason.
11. I proceed to examine the question of estoppel against non-petitioner No. 2.
12. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Geeta Mishra's case AIR 1971 Ori. 276 held that the principle of estoppel applies to a representation made under a mistake and fraudulent intention is also not necessary to create estoppel. In that case there was gross negligence on the part of the University as a result of which there was a detriment to the interest of the petitioner. In that case she could not apply for the Supplementary Examination in English in time with the necessary Examination fees. The treatment which the petitioner thus suffered was the proximate or immediate cause of negligence of the University. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was ordered that the concerning respondents Nos. 1 to treat the petitioner having passed in English in the same Examination.
13. Section 14(b) and Rule 16 of the Mysore Medical College (Selection for Admission) Rules 1975 came up for consideration in K.H. Shivadatt's case AIR 1972 Mysore 135. In that case a candidate obtained admission. Subsequently University discovered that he is ineligible for admission. Section 14(b) of the Rules provided that such a candidate shall have no claim to continue his studies. Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules also did not confer any power on the Selection Committee to review selection once made. R. 16 was also held to be not applicable. It was held that the Selection Committee causes to function on the publication of selection list of selected candidates and thereafter cannot cancel his seat. Before a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Anilkumar's case : AIR1973All442 the University represented to an examinee for M.Sc. (Part I) Examination that he passed that examination by forwarding the mark list showing himself to be successful and subsequently confirmed the said representation by informing in response to his application for scrutiny of certain answer books that there was no change in the marks obtained by him. It was held that the University could not after his having completed M.Sc. (Final) Selection Course as per recruitment prohibit him on the eve of M.Sc. (Final) Examination from appearing at that Examination on the plea that he in fact did not pass M.Sc. (Previous) Examination. Geeta Mishra's case AIR 1971 Ori. 276 and K.H. Shivadatta's case AIR 1972 Mysore 135 were noticed in : AIR1975Ori155 Pritamdas's case : AIR1975Ori155 . In that case the petition studying in the B.Sc. class was selected for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of the marks obtained in the competitive Entrance Examination for the M.B.B.S. Course. The petitioner left her studies in the former College as she was admitted to the Medical College and after some time her admission was cancelled as it was found that in the entrance examination she secured less marks than some other candidates who were not selected. The petitioner had all the qualifications prescribed for selection. It was opined that the petitioner had suffered heavy financial loss on account of the negligence of the authorities, for, it was not possible for the petitioner to go back to her former college and pursue her studies there. In these facts the principle of estopel was attracted and the order for cancelling her admission was quashed. Anil Kumar's case : AIR1973All442 was considered in Bundelkhand University's case AIR 1983 All. 378. In that case a mark sheet was issued to the student by the University showing that he passed B.Sc. Part I Examination. That mark sheet was found to be genuine and in conformity with the tabulation chart maintained by the University and on the basis of that mark sheet the student was admitted to and appeared in B.Sc. Part II Examination and because of the said mark-sheet the student did not reappear at the B.Sc. Part I Examination. It was held that the University was estopped from withholding the result of the student of the B.Sc. Part II Examination on the ground that the student was wrongly admitted to the B.Sc. Part II Examination because he had in fact failed in the B.Sc. Part I Examination and the revised: mark-sheet was a forged document. In Bundelkhand University's case AIR 1983 All. 378 reliance was also placed on Shreekishan v. Kurukshetra University : AIR1976SC376 . It is clear from these authorities that principle of estoppel can be invoked to a case against an Authority which represents though under a mistake that a student has been admitted or that he has passed a particular examination. The Principal and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals (non-petitioner No. 2) represented the petitioners by issuing the orders that they have been admitted to M.B.B.S. Course at Dr. S.N. Medical College and asked them to undergo medical test and intimated that they have been found medically fit. The fees were also deposited by them and they were asked to attend the regular classes. Even if there was any bonafide clerical mistake as stated in Anx. 1 the Principal, Dr. S.N. Medical College and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur (non-petitioner No. 3) had no jurisdiction to cancel their admission, for, he represented them that they have been admitted to M.B.B.S. Course. The Principle of estoppel is attracted. On this ground alone Anx. 1 cannot be sustained and it has to be quashed.
14. It may be stated that the admission Board has not been made party to the writ petitions. The petitioners were not selected for admission by the Medical Board. No order was issued directing them to go for medical test. Under Rule 4(b) the admission Board has to allot place of study in its discretion. Under Clause (C) of Rule 4 only a provisional list of candidates selected by the Admission Boarn has to be put on the Notice Board of the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur and the candidates provisionally selected are to be examined by the Medical Board appointed by the Principal of the respective Medical Colleges on the basis of criteria evolved for Medical Examination by the Principal regarding their general and physical fitness for medical studies. Admittedly no act was done by the Admission Board under Clause (G) of Rule 4 of the Rules.
15. The writ petitions are allowed and the order Anx. 1 dated December 17, 1983 relating to the petitioners is quashed. Further consequence as a result of the aforesaid order shall follow. This will, however, be subject to the Rules and Regulations or any other instructions governing admission to I.M.B.B.S. Course. There will be no order as to costs of these writ petitions.