Candidates Cannot Change Domicile Status In Counselling Form After Last Date Of Registration: High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

Citing Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Admission Rules"), the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Kumar Sharma held-

The language of Rule 6 aforesaid, in our opinion is plain, clear and unambiguous. Thus, it should be given effect to in spite of any consequence. The purpose of inserting Rule 6 is already dealt with in sufficient detail by the previous Division Bench in Ayushi Saraogi (supra). We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Ayushi Saraogi (supra). If any other interpretation is given to the said Rule, it will certainly defeat the very purpose of inserting the said Rule in the statute book. Rule 6 is inserted by law maker with a conscious view that if position or factual aspects are permitted to be changed, it will create chaos for the examining authorities.

The case of the Petitioner was that after getting the score card of NEET Test, he was required to fill up the counselling form. While filling the form, he committed an inadvertent mistake and in front of relevant entry whether he belongs to M.P. Domicile, he mentioned in capital letters as 'No'. Resultantly, the Respondents in the impugned merit list treated him as a candidate not belonging to M.P. Domicile. The Petitioner argued that this action of the Respondents could have a drastic impact on his fate. If he were treated to be a candidate having M.P. Domicile, his chances to get a government institution in the State would be on a higher footing in comparison to a situation which is flowing from the impugned merit list.

Referring to the Rule 6 of the Admisison Rules, the Petitioner conceded that after registration, no information furnished by candidate shall be permitted to be changed, modified or additional information shall be accepted. However, he urged the Court that the said rule cannot be given a literal interpretation or else it would defeat the purpose of grant of benefit of domicile. He added that it is a curable defect, which could be permitted to cure. He referred to the decisions of the Apex Court such as in Kedar Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors. to contend that the technical objection should not prevail over the purpose and object of the enactment. He also relied on P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan & Ors. to contend that a curable defect may be permitted to be cured.

Per contra, the State relied on the decision of the Court in Ayushi Saraogi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. to argue that Rule 6 is plain and clear and as per the respective rule, no modification, amendment or change in the entry already made is permissible. It further referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Maharishi Daynanda University v. Surjeet Kaur to argue that when Rule 6 is clearly prohibiting any correction, the Court was under no obligation to pass an order which would run contrary to statutory Admission Rules.

Examining the language of Rule 6 of the Admission Rules and the judgment in Ayushi Rastogi case, the Court observed-

The plain reading of the said findings of the Division Bench leaves no room for any doubt that aforesaid Rule was treated to be binding and mandatory.

This is trite that if language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of the consequences as expounded in Nelson Motis v. Union of India and another 1992 (4) SCC 711 and in P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2020) 9 SCC 161.

The Court further scrutinized the decision of the Apex Court in Surjeet Kaur case and held-

This judgment makes the legal position clear like a cloudless sky. If constitutionality of a Rule is not called in question, by adopting an interpretative process, we cannot defeat the plain language and purpose of the Rule. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that present defect was curable and Rule is not coming in the way of the petitioner.

Disagreeing with the contentions and interpretation of Admission Rules put forth by the Petitioner, the Court opined-

Suffice it to say, in our view, the object to frame admission rules was to prescribe a procedure for the purpose of admission process. While doing so, Rule makers have provided specific methods, checks and prohibitions to ensure smooth conduct of examination/ selection. Thus, object of said rule cannot be stretched in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be pressed into service in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The Court therefore, decided not to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Madhav Shrama v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 31