ORDER
N.A. Kakru, J.
1. The petition having qualified test of diploma ‘A’ grade Nursing course held on June 30th, 1994 was selected for the said course for the session Sept. 1994. She was required to join the course by 15th of Oct. 1994 but she failed to report within the period stipulated. She has assailed such failure to her ailment and has produced a Medical Certificate dated 11-11-1994 forming Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This certificate depicts that the petitioner was suffering from ‘bronchial Asthma’ and was advised complete bed rest for the period commencing from 10-10-1994 to 10-12-1994. What is the evidentiary value of the certificate produced and how does it help the petitioner are the issues which arise but I chose to skip over in view of the nature of controversy and I presume it to be genuine one. Consequently, the petitioner is presumed to be bed ridden from 10-10-1994 to 10-12-1994.
2. Having accepted the petitioner’s ground of confinement to the bed for period of two months a question arise as to what impact can it have on the fate of the writ petition and to appreciate the issue involved in its right perspective, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner was required to Join by 15th of Oct. 1994 but failed to. No doubt the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she had reported to the respondents after having recovered from the ailment but on which date, nothing is indicated. The petitioner is conscious of the fact that it is not a case where permission to join is denied but is case of failure to join, therefore, date on which she had reported the respondents is significant, yet she has opted for silence and dealing with the averment, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner had at no potnt of time reported to them . It can be safely gathered (from the conduct of the petitioner and the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner had initially chosen not to join, therefore, she did not approach the respondents but at a later stage she has entertained a second thought and without representing to the respondents she has filed this writ petition at a belated stage.
3. The petition was filed on 20-7-1995, whereas the petitioner was required to join by 15-10-1994, as per the averment made in writ petition. As such the delay involved is of more than nine months, Ex facie it is an inordinate delay on which count satisfactory and cogent explanation is wanting. Lapse of nine months it is much longer period in the case of an academic course. Reckoned from the date of institution of the writ petition the successive session viz 1995 had to start only after a period of less than three months, obviously major portion of the session to which admission is sought had already expired when the petitioner approached the Court. It is settled legal position that Courts can interfere in a matter even after the passage of a certain length of time provided the party approaches the Court expeditiously. In the instant case, the petitioner has chosen to be silent for nine long months which virtually tantamounts to abandonment of the claim. In view of the circumstances, of the case this is a fit case where discretion to exercise power under Article 226 should be refused.
4. The averments of the petitioner depict a stand that the respondents could not have filled up the seat while saying so the petitioner is ignoring the fact that she was required to join by a particular date and beyond the date notified. The respondents were under no obligation to wait for her and no institution is expected to wait in such matters because the seat has to be offered to the next selected /qualified candidate. If the authorities keep the seats vacant such action is likely to mar the career of the candidates who are next in que merit wise. There may be a case where a selected candidate may have a genuine cause to advance for his inability to join by the date fixed and the authorities concerned and competent are supposed to address themselves to the plight if urged, provided that are approached in right earnest, but an
excuse cannot be available beyond a reasonable period and a period of nine months by no stretch of imagination can be said to be reasonable, and in view of the attending circumstances of the case the petitioner has lost the seat, Nowever I refrain from going into tenable probabilities and possibilities because it has no relevance with the case in hand.
5. The learned counsel lor the petitioner has drawn my attention to the notification No. ACAD 11 of 1994 dated 30th Oct. 1994 which required the selected candidate to report by Oct. 1994, which date precedes the date of notification and it is contended that the dates so mentioned were bound to create confusion. Undoubtedly, there appears a discrepancy in as much as dates are concerned but it cannot help the petitioner any way because of variety of reasons, a few being that there is no challenge thrown in the writ petition on this count. Moreso, the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner make it manifestly clear that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the date she was required to join as is evident from paras 5 and 7 of the writ petition. These paras establish the fact that the petitioner had sufficient knowledge about the actual dates and did not suffer from any confusion whatsoever and I find it nothing but an attempt to prompt the Court to display indulgence which is not possible because the argument is not only unfounded but finds no place in the pleadings of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to go beyond her pleadings. It is worthwhile, to make a reference to the observation of the Apex Court in S.S. Sharma v. U.O.I, reported in AIR 1981 SC 588 (Refer para 6 and 7 page 591).
“…………… No ground has been taken in
the writ petitions assailing the validity of the Office Memorandum on the basis now pressed before us. We are of opinion that the courts should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation except through the well known process of formally applying for amendment. We do not mean that justice should be available to only those who approach the Court confined in a strait jacket. But there is a procedure known to the law, and long established by codified practice and good reason, for seeking amendment. If undue laxity and a too easy informality is permitted to enter the proceedings of a
Court, it will not be long before a contemptuous familiarity assails its institutional
diginity and ushers in chaos and confusion
undermining its effectiveness. Like every
public institution, the courts function in the
security of public confidence and public
confidence resides most where institutional
discipline prevails. Besides this, oral sub
mission raising new points for the first time
tend to give grave injury to a contesting party
by depriving it of the opportunity, to which
the principles of natural justice hold it
entitled, of adequately in preparing its response.
7. We must, therefore, decline to entertain the point now raised concerning the validity or the Office Memorandum …….”
The petitioner has not sought any amendment of the writ petition which depicts her non seriousness about the objections. It is relevant to notice that she was conscious of the fact that amendment if sought would tantamount to withdrawal of the admission made by her in para 5 of the writ petition, wherein she has expressed awareness in respect of date prescribed for her joining viz. 15-10-1994, therefore, did not seek amendment and applying the ratio of the Judgment (supra) to the facts and circumstances of this case the argument advanced does not merit any consideration which is otherwise also unfounded on facts.
6. There is no dispute that the course for which the petitioner was selected stands already completed and the conditions of eligibility for admission to diploma ‘A’ Grade Nursing Course for the session 1995 have undergone a sea change as is evident from the reply of the respondents. The requisite qualification for the said course for the session 1994 was 10 + 2 with Arts subjects where as for the session 1995 and onwards the eligibility is 10 + 2 with Science subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Biology). The petitioner’s positive case is that she is 10 + 2 with Arts subjects. The petitioner on her own showing is ineligible for consideration and her selection is out of question now. Being ineligible in terms of the regulations governing the selection, grant of relief has become impossible.
7. The petitioner has made an abortive attempt to designate the action of the respondents as discriminatory one, on the ground that those selected were allowed to join the course to her exclusion. True it is that other were admitted to the course but they had joined as required and had the
petitioner also joined within the period stipulated, she too would have been allowed to undergo the course but she has on her own chosen not to go for it. That being so she cannot claim to be similarly circumstanced. Obviously violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is nothing but a bald assertion which is unfounded.
8. For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition is dismissed, without any order as to costs.