Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition from a student who sought admission to the first year MBBS course after failing to deposit a required payment seat fee during the scheduled counselling. The court’s order, focused on the university’s published rules and the wording of the counselling call letter, concluded that the institute and university acted within the rule framework and gave adequate notice to all candidates.
The petitioner, who ranked 127th in the Pre-Medical Test held in June 2003 and belonged to the unreserved category, attended counselling called for 24–25 September 2003 at the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur. The call letter informed candidates that free seats required a fee of Rs. 29,500 and payment seats Rs. 2,50,000, and expressly stated that fees must be deposited immediately through a bank draft in the name of the university’s registrar with no additional time allowed.
According to the petition, the student’s counselling took place on 25 September; she was told she had been selected for a payment seat and asked to deposit Rs. 2,50,000 immediately. Her father said the family could not produce the full amount at once and offered Rs. 50,000 as a guarantee, while another family member was en route to bring the balance. The institute refused the request and the candidate lost the seat. The petitioner argued the rules and the counselling notice were ambiguous and that, in the circumstances, she should have been allowed reasonable time to arrange payment.
Respondent authorities and their counsel countered that the call letter and rules were clear, that all candidates were given a copy of rules at registration and expressly informed that immediate payment would be required if a candidate was offered a seat, and that the publication on the evening of 24 September made it evident remaining counselling would be only for payment seats. The return pointed out that the petitioner had prepared a draft for Rs. 50,000—an amount that matched neither the free-seat nor payment-seat requirement—and that 24 other candidates who were offered payment seats paid the full fee immediately.
Judge Bhadoo examined Rule 7 of the Guru Ghasidas University admission rules for the 2003–04 session and the counselling call letter (Annexure P-4). The order highlights Clause 12.1, which sets out the exact fee amounts for free and payment seats, and Clause 12.2, which demands immediate fee deposit through bank draft and states no additional time would be permitted. The court accepted the university’s position that it was not feasible in advance to predict which candidates would be offered free or payment seats and that a general, advance notice specifying both fee amounts and the requirement of immediate payment was reasonable and lawful. The judge found that the petitioner and her father had adequate notice and opportunity to arrange funds—particularly after the evening notice on 24 September that free seats were already filled—and that the institute had waited until 6 p.m. on 25 September before declaring the candidate ineligible.
On those grounds, the court concluded there was no arbitrariness or breach of natural justice in denying admission when the fees were not deposited as required. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and costs were awarded.
The order reinforces two practical points for admission procedures. First, when call letters and published rules clearly require immediate fee payment, institutions are entitled to enforce those requirements to preserve the integrity and timetable of counselling. Second, candidates must be prepared to meet clearly stated financial requirements during counselling or risk losing a seat; ad hoc requests for additional time or partial payments are unlikely to succeed where rules expressly prohibit extensions.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 3498 of 2003, Ku. Anjum vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (03.02.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anand Kumar Tiwari, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Ranbir Singh, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent No. 1 and Manindra Shrivastava, Adv. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227
======
संविधान – प्रवेश – भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 226 और 227 के अंतर्गत याचिका – याचिकाकर्ता ने एम.बी.बी.एस. कोर्स में प्रवेश के लिए आयोजित प्री-मेडिकल टेस्ट में भाग लिया और परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण की। परामर्श (काउंसलिंग) हेतु उसे पत्र भेजा गया जिसमें उसे एक निर्धारित तिथि पर उपस्थित होने के निर्देश दिए गए। याचिकाकर्ता नियत तिथि पर परामर्श के लिए उपस्थित हुई। परामर्श के दौरान उसे भुगतान-आधारित (पेड सीट) सीट पर प्रवेश की पेशकश की गई और उसे प्रवेश शुल्क जमा करने के लिए कहा गया।
याचिकाकर्ता समय सीमा के भीतर आवश्यक शुल्क जमा नहीं कर सकी, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप प्रत्युत्तरदाताओं ने उसका प्रवेश रद्द कर दिया। इस कार्रवाई के विरुद्ध याचिकाकर्ता ने संविधान के अनुच्छेद 226 और 227 के अंतर्गत याचिका दायर की, जिसमें प्रवेश निरस्तीकरण को चुनौती दी गई।
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि एम.बी.बी.एस. प्रवेश नियमों के अनुसार चयनित अभ्यर्थियों को प्रवेश शुल्क निर्धारित समय सीमा के भीतर जमा करना अनिवार्य है, और नियमों में समय विस्तार का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है। इस मामले में याचिकाकर्ता ने निर्धारित समय पर शुल्क जमा नहीं किया, जबकि अन्य अभ्यर्थियों ने आवश्यक शुल्क नियमानुसार जमा कर दिया था।
अतः, केवल शुल्क न जमा करने के कारण प्रवेश निरस्त किया जाना अवैध नहीं कहा जा सकता।
परिणाम: याचिका निरस्त की गई।
