Vanshika Sabharwal vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not at fault for the failure to deposit the tuition fee. It was evident that she made sincere attempts to fulfill all requirements within the prescribed time, and the repeated return of funds was due to a technical anomaly in the banking transaction, which was beyond her control. The Court found that the petitioner had acted in good faith and complied with all procedural requirements. Denying her admission on a purely technical ground would be unjust and disproportionate, disregarding her academic merit and rightful entitlement. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's future aspirations were at stake, and refusing admission would have long-lasting consequences. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be inequitable to deny her relief. The Court directed the Admission Committee to grant admission to the petitioner and allowed her to physically deposit the tuition fee within three days. If the bank failed to accept the amount, she could deposit it via demand draft within the next two working days. The Chairman of the Admission Committee was requested to provide all possible assistance.

Facts

The petitioner, Vanshika Sabharwal, a Scheduled Caste candidate, sought admission to the MBBS course in Haryana. After participating in multiple rounds of counselling, she was allotted a seat in the third round. She was required to deposit a tuition fee of Rs. 7,50,000/- by October 18, 2024. Despite making three attempts to deposit the fee via RTGS from her father's account on October 16 and 18, 2024, the amount was debited but subsequently reverted by the bank. The petitioner submitted a representation and then filed a writ petition. The Admission Committee declared her ineligible due to non-receipt of the transfer fee, despite her documents being provisionally verified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to admission to the MBBS course despite the failure to deposit the tuition fee within the stipulated time due to technical banking issues, and if so, what relief can be granted? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that she made sincere attempts to deposit the fee on multiple occasions, and the failure was due to technical anomalies in the banking transaction, which were beyond her control. She contended that she should not be penalized for systemic failures and that denying her admission would be unjust, considering her merit and category. She relied on her diligent efforts and the fact that no other candidate was admitted in her place. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, represented by the Admission Committee, relied on a public notice dated August 16, 2024, stating that the committee would not be responsible for any transaction failure or delay in fee deposit. They submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as the fee was not received.