AMAN PIYUSH KHANNA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREAMBLE in this group of petitions, though grievances raised in all petitions are not identical, they all pertain to the procedure for admissions to Medical and Paramedical Professional Courses for the academic year 2009-2010. These admissions are governed by Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009 (here-in-after referred to as "the Admission Rules of 2009" ). Since different facets of the Admission Rules of 2009 are involved in all the petitions and in some of the petitions some of the Rules are also under challenge, we find it convenient to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment. FACTUAL ASPECTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL

(2.) IN Special Civil Application No. 5599/2009, the petitioners have questioned the policy of the State Government to permit the students who have passed 12th standard in Science Stream in previous years also to compete for the Medical and Paramedical seats admissions to which is being granted in the current year i. e. academic year 2009-2010. The petitioners have all passed the 12th standard examination in the academic year 2008-2009 in Gujarat Board. They have applied for admissions to various Medical and Paramedical courses on the basis of their performance in the qualifying examination as well as in the Common Entrance Test held by the respondents in the year 2009. They contend that admissions being granted for such courses in the academic year 2009-2010 should be confined exclusively for those students who have passed HSC examination in the academic year 2008-2009.

(3.) HE further contended that all such students come from Gujarat Board. It is therefore not the case where unequals are being treated as equals. In any case, they all appear for the same GUJCET examination. Fair degree of uniformity and common yardstick is therefore, evolved for judging the relative merits of all students. He relied on the decision of this Court in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad reported in 1990 (2)GLR 1066. He also relied on full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others etc. v. Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay and others etc. reported in AIR 1995 Bombay 1. In Special Civil Application No. 5337/2009, petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 10 and 11 of the Admission Rules of 2009. These Rules pertain to distribution of seats between students of Gujarat Board and other Boards and preparation of merit list for admission. The petitioners have passed their HSC examinations from Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE for short ). In essence, they object to the State policy of preparing two separate merit lists for the students coming from Central Board and those coming from CISCE. Until now, the admissions were being granted on the strength of two separate merit lists, one prepared for Gujarat Board students and another for all other Boards namely Central Board students and CISCE students. In the present academic year however, it is provided under Rule 11 (2) of the Admission Rules of 2009 that first merit list shall include candidates who have passed qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board and second merit list shall consist of two separate merit lists of the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from Central Board and CISCE, New Delhi. 3. 1 Learned advocate Shri D. C. Dave appearing for the petitioners challenged the the Admission Rules of 2009 mainly on the ground that the respondents changed the prevailing policy at the last minute thereby depriving the petitioners and similarly situated other students from exercising any other option. It was contended that until now a common merit list was being prepared for Central Board and CISCE students. Abruptly without any notice and at the last minute, the State Government changed the policy and has in the present academic year provided for two separate merit lists, one for Central Board and other for CISCE students. Meritorious students belonging to CISCE are therefore left with very few seats. In any case, such a change could not have been effected after the examinations were over. He contended that on the principles of promissory estoppal and legitimate expectation, the State policy should be annulled. He relied on decision in case of Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in (1979) 20 GLR 614, wherein this Court stressed the need for the Government policy being declared well in time. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in 2006 (3) GLH 122, wherein also similar observations were made. He also relied on the decision in case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others etc. etc. v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 515, in which limitations of subordinate Legislation have been highlighted. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and ors. v. Union of India and ors. reported in Air 2006 Supreme Court 2945. 3. 2 On the other hand, learned Advocate General Shri Trivedi opposed the petition and contended that earlier method of clubbing the Central Board students and CISCE students in one merit list was not entirely satisfactory and it was felt that for better uniformity, it would be appropriate to further bifurcate the quota internally between the students, so that students coming from different Boards are not placed in the same merit list. It was further contended that the principles of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectations would not apply. Each year the Government frames fresh admission rules and provides for appropriate methodology as per the need of the day.