Bombay High Court: By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to challenge the action of Respondent 3, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and Respondent 4, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and Hospital, vide communication dated 8-10-2013 and 1-2-2014 respectively by which petitioner’s admission to medical course in Respondent 4 was sought to be cancelled on account of invalidity of Non-Creamy Layer Certificate (‘Certificate’) based on which petitioner had taken admission. The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain*, JJ., while rejecting petitioner’s plea to quash the aforesaid action of cancelling admission, held that it would not be proper to withdraw the qualification obtained by petitioner more so when she had qualified as a doctor even though the certificate was found to be obtained through incorrect information.
Background
Petitioner in the year 2012-2013 enrolled herself for MBBS course with Respondent 4 under OBC category and based on the Certificate. A petition was filed by one of the students before this Court seeking inquiry with respect to petitioner’s admission to the MBBS course through the OBC category based on the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against petitioner, where the Enquiry Committee concluded that petitioner’s father misrepresented the authorities while applying for the Certificate and based on this, Respondent 4 cancelled the Certificate and petitioner’s admission to the MBBS course. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the present petition before this Court where she was granted interim relief by staying cancellation of her admission and permitting her to continue with her MBBS course.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioner’s father in his application for obtaining the Certificate stated that his wife was a housewife, and her income was nil. The Court observed that this statement was incorrect since his wife was working with the Corporation as a Class-III employee. The Court opined that the reason why petitioner’s father had given the wrong information would be to avoid being hit by the upper limit of the income which was Rs 4,50,000 as per the Government Resolution 2013 for obtaining the Certificate. If the income of the wife would have been given, then the total income of the family would have exceeded Rs 4,50,000 since petitioner in the said application stated that his income was Rs 4,37,815 for the financial year 2011-2012. Thus, petitioner’s father, to circumvent the upper limit specified by the Government Resolution, had made a false statement.
Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Committee that the application for the Certificate was obtained based on false information and therefore, any certificate obtained on such basis was correctly required to be cancelled.
The Court noted petitioner’s father claim that he had given Talaq to his wife but on enquiry, it was found that all the family members including his wife were staying together. Thereafter, petitioner’s father stated that although he had given Talaq, he was staying with his wife for the betterment of the children. The Court opined that this was self-contradictory and thus, the Enquiry Committee was justified in rejecting such contention.
The Court noted that the Government Resolution providing for an upper income limit for determining the Certificate did not state that the income of only one of the parents should be considered. The Court opined that if the total income of both the parents were considered together, then in the absence of any income proof being shown of petitioner’s mother although she was employed, an adverse inference would be taken. Therefore, petitioner’s contention that even if the income of both the parents was considered, the income of Rs 4,50,000 would be considered was to be rejected more so when there was no material on record to show that petitioner’s mother was Class-III employee.
The Court opined that the basis of cancelling the certificate and the admission was justified since the same was based on false, incorrect and suppression of information. Therefore, petitioner’s prayer to quash the communication dated 8-10-2013 was rejected.
The Court noted that petitioner had completed MBBS course and therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to withdraw the qualification obtained by her more so when she had qualified as a doctor. The Court opined that in our country, where the ratio of the doctors to the population was very low, any action to withdraw the qualification obtained by petitioner would be a national loss since the citizens of this country would be deprived of one Doctor. However, the means of obtaining admission was unfair and had deprived another eligible candidate.
The Court stated that it was conscious of high competition in admission to medical course and about the high expenses to be incurred to enroll for the said course under the Open Category, however, that would not justify that the student should obtain the unfair means, nor would it justify parents’ action to be a part of the unfair means for getting the admission under the OBC Category. The Court opined that if the medical profession was based on a foundation of false information, then certainly it would be a blot on the noble profession. Thus, the foundation of any student should not be built based on false information and suppression of facts.
The Court disposed of the writ petition and passed the following order:
-
Respondent 3 was justified in cancelling Non-Creamy Layer Certificate of petitioner dated 8-10-2013 based on which admission was obtained in Respondent 4.
-
The qualification obtained by petitioner should not be withdrawn by Respondent 4 and Respondent 5- Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, and the said respondents were directed to confer the degree to petitioner.
-
Petitioner’s admission in Respondent 4 right from the year 2012 till completion of the MBBS course would be considered in the “Open Category” and petitioner shall pay difference in the fees which an Open Category Candidate was required to pay for the entire course. The said difference in fees shall be deposited by petitioner with Respondent 4. Petitioner was also directed to pay cost of Rs 50,000 to Respondent 4.
[Lubna Shoukat Mujawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1322, decided on 9-5-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Jitendra Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: D. V. Sutar with Anjali Shaw with Deepak Jain with Latika Kabad.
For the Respondents: R. V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Shaba N. Khan with Mihir Govilkar for Respondent 5-MUHS. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for Res/State. No. 1 to 3.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
