WP/9072/2020 of JYOTI EKNATH WAGH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE UNDER SECRETARY AND OTHERS on 31 December 2020

Arguments

1. We have passed an order on 29.12.2020, which reads as under :- “1.We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Rathod forthe petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General ofIndia Mr. A. G. Talhar for respondent Nos.1 and 5, thelearned AGP Mr. S. G. Sangle for respondent No.2, and thelearned Advocate Mr. M. D. Narwadkar for respondentNo.3.

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that hehas attempted to serve respondent No.4. Since we do notfind proper service effected on respondent No.4, we arepermitting the petitioner to serve respondent No.4 throughthe E-Mail address mentioned in the cause title of thepetition along with a copy of this order.3.The controversy zeroes down upon the petitioner’s original

4.

5. documents having been retained by respondent No.4, inview of her application for admission to the Bachelor ofAyurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) course.Simultaneously, she was selected to join the Bachelor ofDental Surgery (B.D.S.) Course. The call letter indicatessuch allotment and the authorities dealing with theadmissions to the B.D.S. course are demanding the originaldocuments which are with respondent No.4. We areinformed that respondent No.4 has forwarded the requestof the petitioner to respondent No.5 for permitting her toexit from the B.A.M.S. course and for return of the originaldocuments.

Stand over to 31-12-2020, keeping in view that the secondround for the B.D.S. course admission is likely tocommence on 01-01-2021. The learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral of India representing respondent Nos.1 and 5 shallforthwith intimate respondent No.4 to release the originaldocuments of the petitioner and such communication shallbe placed before us on the next date.round for the B.D.S. course admission is likely tocommence on 01-01-2021. The learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral of India representing respondent Nos.1 and 5 shallforthwith intimate respondent No.4 to release the originaldocuments of the petitioner and such communication shallbe placed before us on the next date.

The matter will be listed in the urgent admissions category.The petitioner shall serve respondent No.4 by E-Mail.”The petitioner shall serve respondent No.4 by E-Mail.”

2. Shri Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner, makes acategoric statement that respondent No.4 has been served through anemail. The hard copy of the notice of circulating this matter on29.12.2020 was also sent to respondent No.4 through Blue Dart on28.12.2020. He also tenders a copy of the tracking report of the Blue DartDHL to indicate that respondent No.4 was served on 29.12.2020 at 14:08hours. Both these documents are taken on record and marked as “X-1”collectively for identification.

3. The learned ASGI appearing on behalf of the Ministry ofAyush/ respondent No.5 submits that the directions issued by us on29.12.2020 have been complied with. He places before us certain *3*930wp9072o20

documents (06 pages, which were not paginated and the Court itselfpaginated these pages). These six pages are taken on record and markedas “X-2” collectively for identification.

4. The learned ASGI submits that respondent No.2 has beeninformed that the petitioner is granted an exit from B.A.M.S. admissionprocess and her documents should be forthwith returned to her, byrespondent No.4.

5. Shri Narwadkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3, which is the authority in-charge of the admissionprocess to the B.D.S. course, submits that the deadline to participate in theGovernment quota admission round was 25.12.2020 and the candidateswere expected to appear along with the original documents. The exit froman earlier course in which a candidate may have been selected, waspermissible till the end of 25.12.2020. The petitioner did not appearbefore respondent No.3 for her admission to the B.D.S. course.

6. We find from the record before us that the petitioner hadtendered her application for exiting the B.A.M.S. course to respondentNo.4 on 23.12.2020. An email in this context was submitted to respondentNo.5 on 24.12.2020 at 12:08 hours. Shri Rathod also points out from page29 annexure-E that the Principal of the college immediately contactedrespondent No.5/ Ayush on 23.12.2020 at 05:24 PM seeking guidance topermit the petitioner to exit the B.A.M.S. course.

*4*930wp9072o20

7. It is apparent from the record that it is only after we passedthe order on 29.12.2020, that respondent No.5 woke up from deepslumber and reacted by granting approval to the petitioner to exit theB.A.M.S. course after a delay of 07 days. We also find from page 1 of X-2that respondent No.5 has tacitly permitted the petitioner to exit bydirecting respondent No.4 College to return her original documents andfees as detailed in the attached notice for enabling free exit.

8. We, therefore, find fault with respondent No.1 andrespondent No.5 for having wasted precious time of the petitioner andvirtually jeopardised her admission to the B.D.S. course. We cannot sit assilent spectators and turn a Nelson’s eye to this conduct of respondentNo.5. A meritorious girl student like the petitioner is likely to lose avaluable course like B.D.S. only on account of the apathy and laxity shownby respondent Nos.1 and 5. We, therefore, find this to be a fit case toexercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction and rescue the petitioner fromsuch a precarious situation.

9. As such, this Writ Petition is partly allowed with the followingdirections :- (a)The petitioner shall approach respondent No.4 on 01.01.2021(tomorrow) at 11:00 AM along with the copy of this order and thePrincipal of respondent No.4 shall forthwith return all original documentsof the petitioner along with fees, within one hour.

930wp9072o20

(b) Thereafter, the petitioner would be at liberty to approachrespondent No.3 for participating in the mop-up II round for the B.D.S.admission course and her candidature would be considered strictly on hermerit.

(c) In the event, any seat reserved for the Scheduled CasteWoman category, to which the petitioner belongs, is available withrespondent No.3, she may be considered from the said quota. In the event,no such seat is available, she would be considered from the generalcategory.

In the event, any seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste kps(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)