VIKRAM DHILLON versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 10-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
VIKRAM DHILLON 
v. 
STATE OF HARY ANA & ORS. 
JANUARY 10,2007 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL,CJI,C.K. THAKKERAND 
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, !950-Art.32-Admission in Dental Col/ege-
On default of payment of fee by candidate, vacancy arose-Respondent 6 
A 
B 
was present and was granted admission-Petitioner who was senior to 
C 
Respondent 6 in wait-list was not present and hence not granted 
admission-Writ of mandamus to authorities for admission-Maintainability 
of-Held, Not maintainable-At this stage admission of respondent 6 
cannot be cancelled-Since petitioner was not present on the date of 
admission it would not be appropriate to award compensation to him in 
exercise of extraordinary powers under Art.32-lt is however open to 
petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law-
D 
Education/Educational institutions. 
The present petition is filed for writ of mandamus seeking direction 
to the State and other respondent authorities to grant admission to the 
E 
petitioner in BDS in open category in Governmental Dental College-
respondent no. 8 for the academic year 2004-05. 
The petitioner's case is that respondent No. 2 - University invited 
applications for 'Common Entrance Examination 2004' (CEE) for admission 
to MBBS/BDS in medical/dental colleges/institutes of the State of Haryana. 
Petitioner applied for aforesaid examination and appeared on June 21, 
2004. On June 28, 2004, respondent No.2 notified the result of CEE on 
Notice Board. Though the Prospectus provided that result would be notified 
to the candidates individuality by UPS post, the petitioner was not intimated. 
F 
He, however, found out from the internet that he had secured 128 marks 
G 
out of 180 marks and was ranked at Sl.No.418 in the open category. He 
came to know that the counselling was to be held at Rohtak on August 9, 
2004. He attended the counselling and submitted all his certificates, 
mnrks-sheets etc. He, however, found that he had been arbitrarily placed 
at rank No. 423 instead of 418. The petitioner initially opted for MBBS 
H 
297 
A 
B 
c 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
course in any of the medical colleges mentioned in the Prospectus. 
Alternatively, however, he opted for BDS course in Government Dental 
College, Rohtak,Since the petitioner was informed that there were no seats 
available in MBBS anywhere or in BDS course in Government Dental 
College, Rohtak, he was constrained to opt for BDS course in a private 
Dental College, i.e. M.M. College of Dental Science & Research, Mullana. 
Petitioner attended the second and the third counselling. On 17.10.2004, 
he came to know that though respondent no.6 had secured rank No.442, she 
had been granted admission and petitioner who ranked at SI.No. 423 was 
denied admission. 
Petitioner contended that action of authorities and respondent No.9 
was malicious and ma/a fide and back door entry was given to respondent 
No. 6 on extraneous considerations. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present 
writ petition. 
D 
The Authorities contended that the impugned action could not be said 
to be contrary to law. Since the petitioner neither 'waitlisted' himself nor 
was present on September 30, 2004, admission was granted to respondent 
No.6. 
E 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The petitioner got himself wait-listed at the first 
counselling on 9.8.2004 when he was admitted to Dental College at 
Mullana. Prima facie, he is right ln so submitting keeping in view his 
subsequent conduct. If he was satisfied with the admission in Dental 
College, Mullana and was not interested in getting himself admitted to 
Government Dental College, Rohtak or in changing th~ institute/college, it 
was not necessary for him to remain present at the second and 'third' 
counselling. It was because of the fact that though he was admitted to 
Private Dental College at Mullana, he was ~eeking admission in Government 
G 
Dental College, Rohtak that he attended second and 'third' counselling. 
The factum of attendance at second and 'third' counselling has not been 
denied. But, the petitioner has not expressly and unequivocally stated that 
he was present on September 30, 2004 when respondent No. 6 was granted 
admission. Up to September 29, 2004, no vacant seat was available at 
H 
Government Dental College, Rohtak. It was only on September 30, 2004 
• 
VIKARAMDHILLONv. STATE 
299 
that because of default in payment of fee by three candidates, three 
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.