Nikhil Raswant vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner should not be penalized for a systemic failure in the banking process. The Court found that the petitioner had made diligent and sincere attempts to fulfill the fee payment requirements within the stipulated period. The repeated reversal of funds was attributed to a technical anomaly in the banking transaction, which was beyond the petitioner's control. The Court distinguished the present case from the respondents' argument regarding the number of attempts, stating that the core issue remained the technical failure. The Court emphasized the petitioner's merit, his belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, and the fact that no other candidate had been admitted in his place. Denying admission on a purely technical ground would be unjust and disproportionate. The Court directed the Admission Committee to grant admission to the petitioner and allowed him to physically deposit the tuition fee of Rs.7,50,000/- within three days, with a provision for depositing by demand draft if the bank failed to accept the amount.

Facts

The petitioner sought admission to the MBBS course. He was allotted a seat in respondent no.4-College, with tuition fee payment due between 15.10.2024 and 18.10.2024. The petitioner attempted to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- on 16.10.2024, but the amount was debited from his father's account and subsequently reverted. A similar issue arose on 18.10.2024, with the amount being debited and reverted twice. The petitioner's father only became aware of the reverted entries when the petitioner was denied document verification. The Admission Committee argued that the petitioner failed to make further attempts after the initial reversal, unlike in a similar case, Vanshika Sabharwal vs. State of Haryana and others, which was allowed on 22.10.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted admission to the MBBS course despite the repeated failure of tuition fee payment due to technical banking anomalies, considering the timeline and the number of attempts made. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he made sincere attempts to deposit the fee within the prescribed time, and the failure was due to technical issues beyond his control. He relied on the fact that his father's account showed debits on multiple occasions and that he was unaware of the reversals until the document verification stage. He also implicitly relied on the favorable outcome in the similar case of Vanshika Sabharwal. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Admission Committee, argued that the petitioner failed to make another attempt after the amount was returned on 16.10.2024, whereas in the Vanshika Sabharwal case, three attempts were made. They relied on a public notice dated 16.08.2024, stating the Admission Committee would not be responsible for transaction failures or delays in fee deposit.