Vishnu P. P. and Bindu Ponnu v Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940 WP(C).No. 19180 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **1 VISHNU P.P., AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.PONNU P.C., PARLIKKAD HOUSE, HILL VALLEY STREET, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 651.** **2 BINDU PONNU, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.PONNU P.C., PARLIKKAD HOUSE, HILL VALLEY STREET, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 651.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.T.DINESH SRI.RANJITH XAVIER** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, CIR ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 002.** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, CIG ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 002.** **3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 020.** **4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 020.** **BY SRI.SANDESH RAJA, S.C** **SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, S.C** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 19481 OF 2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **18.06.2018** **WP(C).No. 19180 of 2018 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NUMBER L-11/12/3/UG ADMISSION/2018-19/ MEC/29.01.2018 BY THE DY. MED.COMMISSIONER (ME-II) FOR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NUMBER L-11/12/3/UG ADMISSION/ 2018-19/MEC DATED 30.01.2018 BY THE DY. MED. COMMISSIONER (ME-II) FOR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ADMISSION NOTICE NUMBER L-11/12/3/UG ADMISSION/2018-19/MEC DATED 09.05.2018 BY THE DY.MED. COMMISSIONER (ME-II) FOR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURE. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NUMBER L-11/12/3/UG ADMISSION/2018-19/ MEC DATED 28.05.2018 BY THE DY.MED. COMMISSIONER (ME-II). EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER L-11/12/3/UG ADMISSION/2018-19/MEC DATED 28.05.2018 BY THE DY.MED. COMMISSIONER (ME-II). EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ESI CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.06.2018 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL, DON BOSCO HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ESI DATA OF THE SECOND PETITIONER WITH DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTIONS PAID OBTAINED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2018. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S NEET-2018 RESULT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd. 18.06.2018** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** # **W.P.(C) Nos.19180, 19481, 19587, 19604, 19628, 19727 & 19795 of 2018** **----------------------------------------------Dated 14[th] June, 2018.** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners/children of the petitioners have applied for 'Ward of Insured Person' Certificate ('the Certificate' for short) for claiming admission to MBBS/BDS courses against the quota earmarked for the wards of insured persons under the Employees' State Insurance Act, in the Medical Colleges run by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation' for short) and in a few Government Medical Colleges. The applications preferred by the petitioners/children of the petitioners for the Certificate are not being entertained, is the grievance voiced by the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. The applications for the Certificate, in terms of the admission notice issued by the Corporation in this connection should have been submitted on or before 30.5.2018. The petitioners/children of the petitioners have not submitted the WPC No. 19180/18 & con. cases 2 applications within the time stipulated in the admission notice. According to them, admission notice was not duly published. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the admission notice containing the time schedule should have been published in newspapers having sufficient circulation so as to enable all concerned to know about the time schedule within which the applications for the Certificate are to be submitted. Instead, it is stated that the admission notice was published only in the web site of the Corporation. It is stated by the petitioners that on account of the said reason, large number of eligible candidates are not in a position to apply for admission against the quota for want of the Certificate. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions to the Corporation to permit them to file applications for the Certificate. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the admission notice is being published only in the website of the Corporation for the last so many years and WPC No. 19180/18 & con. cases 3 large number of people have applied for the Certificate as usual in the current year as well. It is pointed out that if the petitioners could not have preferred the applications within time, it is on account of the fact that they were not diligent in the matter. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that selection to the quota is made on all India basis and as such, even a minute change in the time schedule fixed for admission procedures will have cascading effect. 4. In **Mridul Dhar and another v. Union of India and others** [(2005) 2 SCC 65], the Apex Court, having regard to the utter chaos and confusion arose from time to time on account of the competent authorities not adhering to the time schedule for the admission procedure to MBBS/BDS courses, issued directions to the competent authorities for filling up the seats for the MBBS/BDS courses in various medical colleges in the country. In the said judgment, it was directed that the time schedule for grant of admission to the aforesaid courses shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned. Later, in **Priya Gupta v. State oc Chhattisgarh and others** [(2012) 7 WPC No. 19180/18 & con. cases 4 SCC 433], following **Mridul Dhar** (supra), the Apex Court again emphasised the need for adherence to the time schedule for admission to MBBS and BDS courses. In the said case, it was held by the Apex Court, among others, that the extension of schedules would defeat the principle of admission on merit, especially in relation to preferential choice of colleges and courses, would delay the commencement of courses, encouraging lowering of the standards of education in the medical/dental colleges by shortening the duration of the academic courses and would also promote chances of arbitrary and less meritorious admissions. It was also held by the Apex Court in the said case that courts shall not show magnanimity in enlarging the time schedules as it would clearly be at the cost of meritorious students. The Apex Court, in **Priya Gupta** (supra), in the circumstances, issued several directions in rem for their strict compliance without demur and default by all concerned. The Apex Court has followed the decisions in **Mridul Dhar** (supra) and **Priya Gupta** (supra), in large number of cases decided later and the need for strict WPC No. 19180/18 & con. cases 5 adherence to the time schedule for the admission procedure for for MBBS and BDS courses was emphasised in all the said cases. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, it may not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in a matter like this for granting the directions sought by the petitioners. 5. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the petitioners have no case that the admission notice has been published for the first time in the web site of the Corporation. This has been the practice for the last few years. The fact that thousands have applied for the Certificate to stake their claim for admission to MBBS/BDS courses against the quota is not in dispute. More than 100 writ petitions have been filed before this Court during the current year itself by persons who have been denied the Certificate. In a case of this nature, I am, therefore, in agreement with the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that if the petitioners could not have preferred applications for grant of the Certificate within time stipulated in the admission notice, it is due to lack of WPC No. 19180/18 & con. cases 6 diligence on their part and they cannot, therefore, blame anybody for the same. The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** tgs