The Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket has fined Authorities Medical Faculty at Amritsar and its principal ₹1 lakh for illegally cancelling admission of an MBBS course aspirant. The excessive court docket bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel additionally saddled Punjab authorities with a compensation of ₹50,000 to be paid to the petitioner scholar, Samarveer Singh, whereas making it clear that the quantity will be recovered from the erring officers.
Primarily based on rating in NEET examination, Singh was allotted a seat by Baba Farid College, Faridkot, the nodal institute for conducting counselling for MBBS course, at Authorities Medical Faculty at Amritsar below the liberty fighters’ class on August 31, 2024. (HT File)
“The present case is an illustration of how litigations are pursued on behalf of the state, in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance and judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system,” the bench noticed underlining that repeat of the identical may solely be prevented if penalty is imposed.
Primarily based on rating in NEET examination, Singh was allotted a seat by Baba Farid College, Faridkot, the nodal institute for conducting counselling for MBBS course, at Authorities Medical Faculty at Amritsar below the liberty fighters’ class on August 31, 2024. He was issued a provisional admission slip on September 3, 2024, after verification of paperwork. Nonetheless, principal of the faculty on October 10 wrote to BFUHS in search of clarification concerning the admission as Singh’s father was an adopted youngster of freedom fighter class. The BFUHS registrar directed the faculty to permit the coed to proceed. However on October 22 the faculty once more wrote to BFUHS to which the BFUHS reiterated its stand. Nonetheless, the principal of the faculty selected to cancel the admission on December 11, the choice challenged in excessive court docket by the coed.
In court docket, the faculty in addition to the state authorities had argued that as per a 1995 communication about adopted youngsters, the youngsters adopted by a freedom fighter shall be accorded the profit provided that such freedom fighter didn’t have any organic youngster. Nonetheless, the petitioner’s grandfather had 5 daughters.
Singh’s father was adopted son of 1 Boorh Singh, a freedom fighter and adoption deed was executed in 1988.
The BFUHS had taken a opposite stand and had maintained that the admission was as per guidelines.
The court docket noticed that as per clauses within the prospectus of the MBBS course reservation is with out drawing any distinction between adopted and organic youngsters/grandchildren. “The language of the clause is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative deviation, ensuring that the benefit of reservation is equally extended to all the eligible children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, irrespective of their biological status,” the court docket recorded including that thus, the excellence sought to be drawn by the federal government is “fallacious”. It additional held that the reservation scheme outlined within the prospectus takes priority and holds primacy over the reservation framework prescribed within the yr 1995 letter. “The prospectus being a binding legal document, cannot be supplanted or undermined by an antedated administrative letter (1995 letter) which explicitly stands inoperative owing to a specific provision, in the form of clause 24, contained in the prospectus,” it held.
“State can’t oppose claims indiscriminately”
The court docket underlined that in discharging its position as a litigant, the state should undertake a balanced and even handed strategy, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims indiscriminately. “The state must exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be discharged with a sense of responsibility,” it underlined including that the constitutional framework envisions the state as a welfare state, which is inherently obligated to behave within the “best interest of its citizens”.
“In litigation involving the state and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the state’s conduct. Unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the state bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity,” the court docket remarked including that frivolous and groundless disputes mustn’t attain court docket as they eat time and clog the overburdened infrastructure of courts.