The petitioner is made to lose one academic year for no fault on his part. As discussed hereinabove, the fault lay both with respondent No.4 as well as respondent Nos.5 & 6, in unjustly denying the admission to the petitioner. Loss of one valuable academic year in a student's life causes serious prejudice to him in various respects. His whole future career will be retarded by one year, apart from his suffering various set-backs. Such a loss will have a devastating effect on the psyche of a student and causes unbearable trauma and mental agony to him. Any amount of money cannot compensate the student for such sufferance. This Court, however, feels that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is awarded reasonable compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 6 are therefore directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs each to the petitioner as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, for denying him the admission into the P.G. Medical course during the academic year 2012-13 for no fault on his part. As disciplinary proceedings have been contemplated against respondent No.4, respondent No.1 shall also initiate action according to law against him for recovery of the said sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Respondent No.6 is also permitted to recover the compensation amount which is directed to be paid to the petitioner, from the officers who are responsible for not referring the community certificate of the petitioner to respondent No.3 under sub-rule (9) of Rule 9 of the Rules for its re-confirmation/re-verification. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP No.25682 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

W.P.No.20041 of 2012

17-8-2012

M. Abdul Amjad Khan

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

Counsel for petitioner : Sri S. Srinivas Reddy

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Social Welfare
  Counsel for respondent No.3 : --
  Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu

? CASES REFERRED:    
1. C.A.No.5055/2012, dated 10-7-2012 (arising out of S.L.P.(C)
      No.7440 of 2012)
2.  (2002) 7 SCC 258
3.  (2005) 2 SCC 65

JUDGMENT:  
        A total disregard for the procedure prescribed for verification of the
community certificate of the petitioner by respondent No.4 to 6 has driven the
former to filing this Writ Petition.  The brief facts leading to the petitioner
approaching this court are stated hereunder:
        The petitioner belongs to the Muslim community ("Shaik" caste).  He has
completed his M.B.B.S. course and obtained Degree therein from Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-respondent No.6, in the year 2009.
The petitioner also registered himself as a Medical Practitioner with the A.P.
Medical Council.  The petitioner has secured Community, Nativity and Date of
Birth certificate, bearing No.D/620/2011, dated 2-5-2011 (for short "the
community certificate"), from the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak
District, under the provisions of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993
(for short "the Act") and the A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Backward Classes - Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates
Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules").
The petitioner appeared for PGMET-2012 conducted by respondent No.6-University
in March 2012.  He secured the rank of 2777 in the said entrance test and
appeared for Counselling conducted by respondent No.6.  The petitioner was
offered Post-Graduate (PG) seat in Psychiatry.  Respondent No.4 took objection
to the community certificate produced by the petitioner while granting
provisional clearance, subject to the petitioner producing a community
confirmation certificate by respondent No.3.  The petitioner has immediately
made a representation on 21-4-2012 to the Director of Backward Classes Welfare,
Backward Classes Welfare Department, Hyderabad-respondent No.2, with a request  
to him to issue necessary clarifications to respondent Nos.4 to 6.  Respondent
No.2, vide his letter Rc.No.E/1261/2012 dated 21-4-2012, informed respondent
No.6 that the competent authority issued the community certificate to the
petitioner after thorough verification under the Act and the Rules and that the
latter may either accept the community certificate furnished by the petitioner,
or in the alternative, order an enquiry through respondent No.3 for re-
verification and re-confirmation of the petitioner's social status.
As the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the Psychiatry subject, he has
appeared in the second round of Counselling held by respondent No.6-University
in May 2012 wherein he was offered admission into P.G. Medical Course in E.N.T.
Notwithstanding the letter dated 21-4-2012, respondent No.4 has given
provisional clearance, purportedly in pursuance of the said letter dated 21-4-
2012 of respondent No.2, subject to condition of the petitioner producing the
community confirmation certificate from respondent No.3.  Eventually, the
petitioner was not given admission into P.G. Medical Course in E.N.T. on the
ground that he did not get his community certificate re-confirmed by respondent
No.3.
On 6-6-2012, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 who issued
proceedings Rc.No.A1/1612/2012 on the same day, wherein the latter has taken a
serious note of the manner in which respondent No.4 has acted by not accepting
the petitioner's community certificate despite the letter dated 21-4-2012
addressed by him.  Respondent No.2 has mentioned in the said proceeding that
respondent No.4 unnecessarily insisted on clarification on the petitioner's
community certificate ignoring the clarification issued by him resulting in
denial of P.G. admission to the petitioner in the E.N.T. subject.  Respondent
No.2 has further observed that if there was a doubt regarding the veracity of
any community certificate, it is the District Collector who has to enquire into
the caste status of such person and that till then the candidate shall be
allowed for Counselling on the strength of the certificate produced by him.
Respondent No.2 has lamented that on account of the action of respondent No.4 in
needlessly insisting on further confirmation of the community certificate, the
petitioner has lost the opportunity of getting admitted into the P.G. Medical
course, which constitutes negligence and defiance of the instructions of the
Head of the Department on the part of respondent No.4.  Accordingly, while
contemplating disciplinary proceedings, respondent No.2 has placed respondent
No.4 under suspension.
The petitioner averred that while addressing the letter dated            21-4-
2012 to respondent No.6-University, respondent No.2 simultaneously referred the
issue of the genuineness of the petitioner's community certificate to respondent
No.3 and that after getting the petitioner's social status re-confirmed as B.C.
(E) through the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram
Mandal, respondent No.3 sent his report vide letter No.C2/CV/2494/2012, dated
30-6-2012, to respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6.  However, despite the said letter,
the petitioner was not admitted into the P.G. Medical course.
The petitioner averred in his affidavit that the Act and the Rules do not place
any obligation on a person who obtained the community certificate from the
competent authority i.e., the Tahsildar, to get re-verification of the
certificate by the District Collector and that as clarified by respondent No.2,
if any doubt arises with respect to the community certificate produced by any
person, it is only respondent No.6 that has to seek re-verification of such
certificate from respondent No.3.  The petitioner has therefore squarely blamed
respondent Nos.4 to 6 for denial of seat to him in the P.G. Medical course due
to non-adherence to the prescribed procedure by the latter.  The petitioner
further averred that one N. Vamsi Krishna, who secured 34th rank in the entrance
test was admitted by respondent No.6 into the P.G. Medical course in General
Medicine in the Gandhi Medical College; that as the said candidate has secured a
seat in the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), he discontinued his
course in the Gandhi Medical College on 12-6-2012; that presently there are two
seats lying vacant in the Gandhi Medical College in General Medicine and two
seats in Radiology in the Osmania Medical College and that the petitioner may be
accommodated in any one of those vacant seats.
No counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents.  However, I
have heard the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Standing Counsel for
Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences-respondent Nos.5 and 6.
At the hearing, Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner was denied a seat in the P.G. Medical course
solely due to the patently illegal action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in unjustly
refusing to accept the former's community certificate issued by the competent
authority under the Act and the Rules.  He submitted that insistence on the
petitioner to get his community certificate re-verified by respondent No.3, is
alien to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.  The learned
counsel placed reliance on the provisions of the Act and the Rules apart from
letters dated 21-4-2012 and proceeding dated 6-6-2012 of respondent No.2 in
support of his submissions.  He further contended that even though the cut-off
date for admission into the P.G. Medical courses i.e., 31-5-2012, has expired,
as the petitioner's case falls in the category of exceptional and rarest of the
rare cases, and in view of availability of the vacant seats, his client is
entitled to be admitted in one of those vacant seats.  In support of his
submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in Asha Vs. Pt.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences1.  The learned
counsel also relied upon Regulation Nos.10.4 and 10.5 in support of his
submission that since the Classes were commenced and the petitioner will not be
able to put in the minimum attendance of 80%, the absence period may be treated
as leave and his study period may be extended.
The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, respectively, have not disputed the fact that the
rejection of the petitioner's community certificate is in violation of the
procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.  However, the learned Standing
Counsel submitted that respondent No.6-University has no say on the aspect of
acceptance of the community certificate of a candidate and that it has to abide
by the decision of the Verification Officer who has been deputed to the
University for this specific purpose in terms of G.O.Ms.No.44, Health, Medical
and Family Welfare (E2) Department, dated 25-2-2005.  While contending that due
to non-acceptance of the petitioner's community certificate by respondent No.4,
the petitioner could not be admitted into the P.G. Medical course (ENT), the
learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the Classes have been commenced from  
2-5-2012 and every candidate has to put in the minimum of 80% of attendance, it
is not possible to admit the petitioner at this stage.  He emphasized on the
need for the students to attend the training to maintain high standards of
learning and submitted that the academic standards cannot be allowed to be
compromised by admitting the petitioner into the P.G. Medical course after the
expiry of more than three months of commencement of the Classes.  The learned
Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner who secured the rank of
2777 would not have been admitted in either of the subjects i.e., General
Medicine or Radiology, even if his case was considered, and that by mere
providence of availability of seats for various reasons, the petitioner cannot
be admitted into the P.G. Medical course in the vacant seat in the subjects
which would have been available only for the candidates of higher merit.
I have given my earnest thought to the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties.  In the light of the respective contentions of the learned Counsel,
two issues arise for consideration before this Court.  They are :
1.  Whether refusal of admission to the petitioner in the P.G. Medical course on
the strength of the community certificate produced by him is legal, proper and
valid ?
2.  If the answer to Issue No.1 is in the negative, to what relief the
petitioner is entitled ?

Re-Issue No.1:  The Act and the Rules govern the issue of Community, Nativity
and Date of Birth certificates in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes.  Under Section 3 of the Act,
a person seeking issuance of community certificate shall make an application to
the competent authority, who is an officer authorized by the Government.  On the
competent authority being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, he will
issue the community certificate.  The said provision ordains that a certificate
in regard to the community, issued by any person, officer or authority, other
than the competent authority, shall be invalid.  Under Section 5 of the Act, if
a false community certificate is obtained by any person not belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes, the District
Collector may either suo motu, or on a written complaint of any person, shall
cancel the certificate after holding an enquiry into the genuineness of the
community certificate.
Rule 5 of the Rules envisaged procedure for verification by the competent
authority regarding the community of the person who applied for the certificate.
A State Level Scrutiny and Review Committee is prescribed by Rule 7 and a
District Level Scrutiny Committee is prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules.  Under
Rule 9, where the District Collector receives a written complaint from any
person or has otherwise reason to believe that a person not belonging to the
Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe or the Backward Class, has obtained a
false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate, he shall refer the case
to the Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee and call for a report from
him.  The Scrutiny Committee, after enquiry, will submit a report, based on
which the District Collector will take a decision as to whether the certificate
obtained by the person concerned is genuine or fraudulent.  In case the
Collector finds that the certificate is fraudulent, he will cancel the same.
Rule 9, which is very relevant for the present purpose, reads as under:
Fraudulent claims: (1)  Where the District Collector or Collector receives a
written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that a
person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class has
obtained a false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate to the effect
that either himself/herself or his/her children belong to such a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Class, the District Collector shall refer the
case to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee i.e., the Joint Collector of the
District (formed under Rule 8, to enquire into such cases and send its findings
to the District Collector).
2. The Scrutiny Committee on receipt of such cases referred to it by the
District Collector, shall follow the procedure as listed in Rule 8(d),(1) to (7)
except that it shall serve the notice in Form VI on the person involved in the
case.
3. The Scrutiny Committee shall in such cases cause enquiry by the protection of
Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell also i.e., through the officer representing the
Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell as the member of the committee.  The
protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell should investigate the social status
claimed by the person by sending the Inspector of Police to the local place of
residence of that person and where he/she usually resides or in case of
migration, to the town or city from which he/she originally hailed from.  The
Inspector should personally verify and collect all the facts, about the
community claim of the person or the guardian or the parent, as the case may be.
4. Where the person on whom a notice served in Form-VI fails to respond to the
notice within the period specified in the notice, the Scrutiny Committee may
finalise its findings based on the material made available by the District
Collector i.e., the enquiry report of the Revenue Department, enquiry report of
the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and the reports of the
expert/Officer of the Research Organisation of the Commissionerate of Social
Welfare/Tribal Welfare.
5. The Scrutiny Committee shall compare the enquiry reports of the Revenue
Department furnished by the District Collector, the reports of the Protection of
Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and the reports of the Expert or Officer of the
Research Organisation of the Commissionerate of Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare
and then finalise its findings whether the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth
certificate given to the person or his/her children is genuine or otherwise.
6. The Scrutiny Committee shall furnish its findings to the District Collector
within 60 days from the date of the receipt of other reference from the District
Collector.
7. The District Collector shall then decide whether the certificate holder is
genuine or fraudulent and in case of his having obtained a Community, Nativity
and Date of Birth Certificate fraudulently, the District Collector shall pass an
order cancelling the certificate issued, within one month from the date of
receipt of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee and shall issue notification
to that effect, to be published in the District Gazette.  The District Collector
shall also take necessary steps to initiate action against the Competent
Authority who issued the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate to
the wrong person, besides taking other specified in Rule 15.  He shall
communicate the cancellation of certificate to the specified in Rule 15.  He
shall communicate the cancellation of the certificate to the educational
institution/employer/appointing authority as the case may be forthwith.
8. In respect of the Bariki SC Community, such written complaints if received by
the Collector shall be referred by him to Government, for necessary enquiry and
final action to cancel the certificate, since the District Collector is the
Competent Authority to issue the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth
Certificate for this community.
9. The Collector or Government, either suo motu, or on a written complaint by
any person, or on request by an employer/educational, institution/appointing
authority, shall enquire into the correctness of any Community, Nativity and
Date of Birth Certificate already issued and if it is found that the certificate
is obtained fraudulently, then the District Collector or the Government, as the
case may be, shall cancel the certificate as per Section 5 of the Act.
10. In respect of Tribals, the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Director of
Tribal Welfare either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person or on
request made by an employer/educational institution/appointing authority, shall
enquire into the correctness of any community, nativity and date of birth
certificate already issued and if it is found that the said certificate is
obtained fraudulently, shall refer the case to concerned Collector or to the
Government for its cancellation as per the procedure laid down in Section 5 of
the Act. (Emphasis added)

From the scheme of the Act and the Rules, there can be no dispute that a
community/caste certificate issued by the competent authority will remain valid
till the same is cancelled by the District Collector concerned after getting a
detailed enquiry held by the District Level Scrutiny Committee.  If an
employer/educational institution/appointing authority has any doubt with respect
to the community certificate of a candidate, it has to make a request to the
District Collector or the Government, as the case may be, for enquiry into the
correctness of such certificate.  It is only after holding of enquiry that the
District Collector or the Government, as the case may be, shall cancel the
certificate under Section 5 of the Act.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the community certificate
produced by the petitioner in both the rounds of Counselling before respondent
Nos.4 to 6 was issued by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District,
who is the competent authority under the Act to issue such a certificate.  If
respondent Nos.4 to 6 had entertained any doubt about the genuineness of the
community certificate of the petitioner, they should have made a request to
respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry in respect thereof.  But, there was
absolutely no warrant for them to reject the certificate or make a provisional
acceptance thereof and insist on the petitioner to get his community certificate
re-verified by respondent No.3.  It was no part of the obligation of the
petitioner to get the community certificate obtained by him re-verified or re-
confirmed by respondent No.3.  This is precisely what respondent No.2 has opined
in his letter dated 21-4-2012 addressed to respondent No.6, wherein he has
categorically stated that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner may
be accepted or an enquiry may be ordered through the District Collector
concerned for re-verification or re-confirmation of the petitioner's social
status and that necessary action in the matter may be taken at the earliest so
that the petitioner is not put to undue hardship.  In all earnestness,
respondent Nos.4 to 6 ought to have immediately requested respondent No.3 to get
re-verification or re-confirmation of the petitioner's community certificate
done before closing of the admissions into the P.G. Medical courses.  None of
these respondents have followed this procedure and instead, they have thrown the
ball into the petitioner's court by asking him to get his community certificate
re-verified by stating as under:
"Caste Verification: Provisional Clearance issued as per the Letter of DBCW,
A.P., Hyderabad Rc.No.E/1261/2012, dated 21.04.2012, subject to condition
production of caste confirmation certificate from the District Collector
concerned as per the undertaking letter issued by the parent unless seat will be
cancelled.
Sd/- on 18.05.2012
Signature of the Officer"
It is significant to note here that the above noted endorsement was made by
respondent No.4 purportedly acting on the letter dated 21-4-2012 of respondent
No.2.  But, as noted above, respondent No.2 has never suggested to respondent
No.6 to throw the responsibility on the petitioner to get the latter's community
certificate re-verified and re-confirmed by respondent No.3.  On the contrary,
he has asked the Registrar of respondent No.6-University, either to accept the
community certificate or write to respondent No.3, to cause an enquiry made into
the social status of the petitioner.  By throwing the burden on the petitioner,
respondent Nos.4 to 6 have clearly acted contrary to sub-rule (9) of Rule 9 of
the Rules and also the letter dated 21-4-2012 addressed by respondent No.2 to
respondent No.6-University.  Had respondent No.6 referred the issue relating to
the genuineness of the petitioner's community certificate to respondent No.3 in
the right earnest on receipt of the letter dated 21-4-2012 from respondent No.2,
there would have been every possibility for getting the petitioner's social
status re-verified/re-confirmed from the latter before 31-5-2012, the last date
for closing of the admissions into the P.G. Medical courses, as there was more
than one month's time left for such re-verification of the community certificate
produced by the petitioner.  Not only that respondent No.4 has shown scant
regard for the community certificate produced by the petitioner issued by the
competent authority under the Act and the Rules and unjustly refused to act on
the same, but respondent No.6 has turned a blind eye to the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Rule 9(9) of the Rules under which the burden squarely lies on
it, being the educational institution, to seek re-verification of the community
certificate produced by the petitioner by respondent No.3.  By thrusting the
responsibility on the petitioner, despite being apprised of the true and correct
procedure by respondent No.2 and refusing admission to the petitioner banking on
the unjust act of respondent No.4, respondent No.6 has acted in the most
unreasonable and arbitrary manner.
        While it is true that the job of verification of a community certificate
is assigned to respondent No.4 under G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 25-2-2005, in my
opinion, respondent No.6-University cannot be a mute spectator to the arbitrary
refusal by the Verification Officer to accept the community certificates
produced by the candidates. Considering the fact that the Medical Courses are so
precious for the aspirants, a high degree of responsibility is cast on
respondent No.6-University to ensure that the Verification Officer deputed by
the Government does not act in a whimsical and capricious manner.  Respondent
No.6-University cannot just shut its eyes to the illegal rejection of the
community certificates of the candidates by the Verification Officer, shirking
its responsibility under Rule 9(9) of the Rules.  Even if it cannot veto the
opinion of the Verification Officer, respondent No.6-University is under an
obligation to immediately plunge into action under Rule 9(9) of the Rules by
writing to the District Collector concerned and getting the re-verification of
the community certificate of a candidate done.  In the instant case, respondent
No.6-University miserably failed to take such action in respect of the
petitioner's admission into the P.G. Medical course, even though respondent
No.2, at the earliest, guided it to follow the procedure of seeking re-
verification from respondent No.3.  Therefore, I do not find any merit in the
submission of the learned Standing Counsel that respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot be
held responsible for the denial of admission to the petitioner into the P.G.
Medical course.  In my opinion, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are as much responsible
as respondent No.4, for the unjust denial of admission to the petitioner into
the P.G. Medical course.   Issue No.1 is accordingly answered.
Re-Issue No.2: From the discussion undertaken under Issue No.1, it is clearly
evident that the petitioner who was entitled to be admitted into M.S. (E.N.T.)
Course was unjustly denied admission.  In ordinary course, the petitioner would
have been entitled to a direction from this Court to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to
admit him in the said course if a seat is available or in any other subject
which he would have been entitled to admission on the basis of his rank and as a
candidate belonging to B.C. (E).  But. this Court is faced with an almost
insurmountable legal hurdle for granting such relief.  In Medical Council of
India Vs. Madhu Singh and others2, the Supreme Court, taking judicial notice of
the abnormal delays in commencement of academic course and utter lack of
uniformity in various Universities in the country in this regard, directed the
Medical Council of India (MCI) to ensure that the examining bodies fix a time
schedule specifying the duration of the course, the date of its commencement and
the last date for admission.  It has further directed that specific time
schedule be fixed for taking necessary steps such as holding of examinations,
counselling and the like and that no variation of the schedule with regard to
admissions shall be allowed.  Following the said directions, the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, issued directive dated 14-5-2003
to the Secretaries of Health/Medical Education in all the States and Union
Territories and to all the Universities awarding medical/dental degrees, laying
down policy guidelines on admission of students and other allied matters.  The
said order directed that neither any student shall be admitted in any course of
medicine or dentistry after expiry of the last date prescribed after closure of
admission in that course nor any University shall register any such admission
sought to be made, with the further direction to the State Governments to take
all necessary steps to prevent deviation from the prescribed schedule.  The
Ministry has fixed separate time schedules for the MBBS/BDS course, P.G. Courses
and Super-Specialty courses.  With regard to the P.G. courses, 2nd of May of
every year has been fixed as the date of commencement of academic session and
31st of May of the year as the last date upto which students can be admitted in
the vacancies arising due to any reason.
        In Mrudul Dhar Vs. Union of India3 the Supreme Court expressed its anguish
at non-adherence to the time schedule fixed by the Universities conducting
medical courses despite its various decisions.  The Supreme Court has referred
to the Regulations of 1999 framed by the MCI which prescribed time schedule of
P.G. and Super-Specialty courses, according to which the academic course shall
commence from 2nd of May of each year and the last date to which the students
can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason is 31st of May of
the year.  While issuing as many as 16 directions to the respective State
Governments and the Universities to keep up the time schedule for different
courses, under direction No.12, the Supreme Court directed that the time
schedule for grant of admission to the P.G. courses shall also be adhered to.
        In Asha (1-supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, dealt with a
case where a candidate who has secured higher rank was denied admission and many  
students who secured lower ranks were given admission in the MBBS course.  One
of the various questions framed by the Court for consideration was, "Whether the
cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic year is the date which
admits any exception?"  While answering this question, the Bench, speaking
through Swatanter Kumar.,J, held at para-31 as under:
"There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date.  The authorities
cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated.
But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission
for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar
to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete
ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question
we have to answer.  Having recorded that the Appellant is not at fault and she
pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the
considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument
or tool to deny admission to a meritorious student.  The rule of merit stands
completely defeated in the facts of the present case.  The Appellant was a
candidate placed higher in the merit list.  It cannot be disputed that
candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in
the MBBS course. The Appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had
attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in
the ESM category in the MBBS course.  It is not only unfortunate but apparently
unfair that the Appellant be denied admission.  Though there can be rarest of
rear cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the
relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those
cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to
the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies
expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the
authorities and apparent breach of some rules,  Regulations and principles in
the process of selection and grant of admission.  Where denial of admission
violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be
completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate.
(Emphasis supplied)

However, in paragraph 36(b), (c & d), the Supreme Court held as under:

"30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students
should report to their respective colleges without fail.  In the normal course,
the admission must close by holding of second counseling by 15th September of
the relevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya
Gupta (CA @ SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011, dated 8-5-2012).  Thereafter, only in very
rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or
pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably
be exercised by the courts.  Further, it will be in the rarest of rear cases and
where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand
frustrated that the courts would exercise their extra-ordinary jurisdiction of
admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the
current academic year.  This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated
by this Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) and this judgment are found to
be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by the court
of competent jurisdiction.

        Wherever the court finds that action of the authorities has been
arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and violative of the Rules,
Regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of
the students, the Court shall award compensation to such students as well as
direct initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.
The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring authorities irrespective of their
stature and empowerment.
Where the admissions given by the concerned authorities are found by the courts
to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to permit the students
to continue with the course, the mere fact that such students have put in a year
or so into the academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them to
continue with the course." (Emphasis added)

The Supreme Court declined to give a direction for admission of the petitioner
therein for the relevant academic year on the ground that even though she was
admitted in the B.D.S. course, her attendance varied between 29% and 42% and
that as she fell short of the required attendance, it was not appropriate to
direct her admission into the MBBS course for the year 2011-12.  Instead, the
Court has directed that the petitioner shall be given admission in the academic
year 2012-13, subject to her pursuing the course from the beginning.
        In the present case also, a more or less similar situation is prevailing
where the academic session has commenced from 2-5-2012.  More than 100 days have  
passed-by since then.  Much argument was advanced on the aspect as to whether it
would be appropriate for directing admission of the petitioner into the P.G.
course during this year.  The learned Standing Counsel has strenuously contended
that any direction given for the petitioner's admission at this length of time
would seriously disturb the academic schedule and that would be contrary to
Regulation No.10.4 of the Regulations framed by the MCI.  The learned counsel
for the petitioner however relied upon Regulation Nos.10.5.1 and 10.5.2.  It is
therefore necessary to consider these Regulations, which read as under:
10.4: Attendance:  Candidates selected for the various courses should be the
whole time students.  Service candidates will have to apply for leave to
prosecute their studies and are required to produce the leave sanction order
from the competent authority not later than three months after joining the
course.  The candidate is required to put in a minimum of 80% attendance during
each calendar year for being eligible to appear for the examination.
        In a year all 365 days will be considered as working days and students
should get 80% attendance each year separately to get eligibility for appearing
for University exams.  The remaining days of absence (including maternity leave)
will be considered for extension.
10.5.1: Leave:  Each year students will be permitted to avail 30 days leave.  No
Post Graduate is allowed to go on leave more than 8 days at a stretch.  In case
the absence of the candidate availing Medical Leave/Maternity Leave/Any other
Leave or unauthorized absence is beyond 30 days in a year the study period of
the candidate will be extended to the extent of such period.  No other leave is
permitted.
10.5.2: Maternity Leave:  Women students can avail maternity leave upto 120 days
only once in their P.G. course of study and the study period will be extended to
the extent of Maternity leave availed.  The candidates shall not be eligible to
appear in the University examination till the completion of study period as per
MCI Regulations (Duration of course).

Regulation No.10.4 is very stringent under which all the 365 days are treated as
working days and the minimum attendance is prescribed at 80% in each year
separately, to get eligibility for appearing in the University examination.
Under Regulation No.10.5.1, the students will be permitted to avail 30 days
leave and no P.G. student is allowed to go on leave for more than 8 days at a
stretch.  If a candidate avails medical leave/maternity leave or any other leave
or absents unauthorisedly beyond 30 days in a year, the study period of such
candidate will be extended to the extent of such period.  Under Regulation
No.10.5.2, maternity leave is made available to woman students upto 120 days
only once in their P.G. course of study and they shall not be eligible to appear
in the University examination till completion of the study period.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Regulation No. 10.4,
every student should attend the course for at least 292 days to put in 80% of
the attendance and that he can be sanctioned leave upto the period of 73 days.
He has also submitted that even though in the instant case, the petitioner's
absence would be for more than 100 days, he could be sanctioned leave on the
analogy of maternity leave, as envisaged under Regulation No.10.5.2.
        Having given my serious thought to this submission, I am unable to accept
the same.  The training for a P.G. student is very much essential for learning
and acquiring the required skills in treating and handling patients.  Each and
every day of the course period is very precious.  A P.G. student who misses more
than 100 days of initial training period will be unable to catch up with the
other students during the rest of his course, howsoever capable and intelligent
he may be.  More often, such students will suffer from lack of confidence
leading to a feeling of inferiority amongst the peers, in understanding and
comprehending complex situations during the course.  Such a student cannot be
equated with a student who goes on leave, including maternity leave, in the
midst of the course period.  Mere extension of the study period to a student
falling in the former category may not be truly helpful to him in overcoming the
deficiencies on account of his long absence in the beginning of the course.
Even though the facts make this case fall in the rarest of rare category of
cases, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Asha (1-supra), for the above
mentioned reasons,           I am not inclined to accept the request of the
learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of admission to the petitioner
during the current academic year i.e., 2012-13.
        The last question that remains is what relief the petitioner should be
granted?  It is not in dispute that had the community certificate produced by
the petitioner been accepted, he would have been admitted in M.S. (ENT) course
during the academic year 2012-13.  The petitioner's stand stood vindicated with
the letter dated 30-6-2012 addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent Nos.2, 4,
5 and 6, whereby he confirmed the genuineness of the community certificate
produced by the petitioner.  As he was unjustly denied the said seat, the
minimum that he would be entitled to, is a seat in the said course at least
during the academic year 2013-14 on the basis of the rank he has already secured
in the entrance test held for admission for the academic year 2012-13, without
the need for him to again appear for the entrance examination to be held in
2013.  For his rank i.e., 2777, he has obtained, if the petitioner has
sufficient merit to choose a seat other than M.S. (ENT), he shall be allotted
such a seat during the academic year 2013-14, treating him as a candidate
belonging to B.C. (E).
        The petitioner is made to lose one academic year for no fault on his part.
As discussed hereinabove, the fault lay both with respondent No.4 as well as
respondent Nos.5 & 6, in unjustly denying the admission to the petitioner.  Loss
of one valuable academic year in a student's life causes serious prejudice to
him in various respects.  His whole future career will be retarded by one year,
apart from his suffering various set-backs.  Such a loss will have a devastating
effect on the psyche of a student and causes unbearable trauma and mental agony 
to him.  Any amount of money cannot compensate the student for such sufferance. 
This Court, however, feels that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner
is awarded reasonable compensation.  Respondent Nos.1 and 6 are therefore 
directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs each to the petitioner as compensation within one
month from the date of receipt of this order, for denying him the admission into
the P.G. Medical course during the academic year 2012-13 for no fault on his
part.  As disciplinary proceedings have been contemplated against respondent
No.4, respondent No.1 shall also initiate action according to law against him
for recovery of the said sum of Rs.2 lakhs.  Respondent No.6 is also permitted
to recover the compensation amount which is directed to be paid to the
petitioner, from the officers who are responsible for not referring the
community certificate of the petitioner to respondent No.3 under sub-rule (9) of
Rule 9 of the Rules for its re-confirmation/re-verification.    
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
        As a sequel, WPMP No.25682 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous. 
________________________  
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 17-8-2012