LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Admission to the medical courses (MBBS and BDS) has been consistently a subject of judicial scrutiny and review for more than three decades. While this Court has enunciated the law and put to rest the controversy arising in relation to one facet of the admission and selection process to the medical courses, because of ingenuity of the authorities involved in this process, even more complex and sophisticated set of questions have come up for consideration of the Court with the passage of time. One can hardly find any infirmities, inaccuracies or impracticalities in the prescribed scheme and notifications in regard to the process of selection and grant of admission. It is the arbitrary and colourable use of power and manipulation in implementation of the schedule as well as the apparently perverse handling of the process by the concerned persons or the authorities involved, in collusion with the students or otherwise, that have rendered the entire admission process faulty and questionable before the courts. It is the admissions granted arbitrarily, discriminately or in a manner repugnant to the regulations dealing with the subject that have invited judicial catechism. With the passage of time, the quantum of this litigation has increased manifold. The law requires adherence to a settled protocol in the process of selection and grant of admission. None should be able to circumvene or trounce this process, with or without an ulterior motive. The courts are duty bound to ensure that litigation relating to academic courses, particularly, professional courses should not be generated for want of will on the part of the stake holders to follow the process of selection and admission fairly, transparently and without exploitation.Keeping in mind the hard reality that there are number of petitions filed in each High Court of the country, on the one hand challenging the admissions on varied grounds while, on the other, praying for grant of admission on merit to the respective professional courses of MBBS/BDS, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the career of the meritorious youth is at stake. These are matters relating to adherence to the rule of merit and when its breach is complained of, the judiciary may be expected to deal with the said grievances preferentially and effectively. The diversity of our country and the fact that the larger population lives in rural areas and there being demand for consistent increase in the strength of qualified medical practitioners, we are of the considered view that such cases, at least as of now and particularly for a specific period of the year require higher priority in the heavy business of court cases. We are not oblivious of the fact that the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court are working under great pressure and with some limitations. However, we would still make a request to the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to direct listing of all medical admission cases before one Bench of the Court as far as possible and in accordance with the Rules of that Court. It would further be highly appreciable if the said Bench is requested to deal with such cases within a definite period, particularly during the period from July to October of a particular year. We express a pious hope that our request would weigh with the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the respective High Courts as it would greatly help in serving the ends of justice as well as the national interest. 39. For the reasons afore-recorded and with the directions as mentioned above, we direct the respondents to grant admission to the appellant to the MBBS course in the current academic year subject to the condition that she will pursue her MBBS course right from its beginning and to the conditions afore-noticed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we award no costs.


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5055  OF 2012
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7440 of 2012)

Asha                                                       … Appellant
                                   Versus
Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences & Ors.                                            …Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1.             Leave granted.

2.             Admission to the medical courses  (MBBS  and  BDS)  has  been
consistently a subject of judicial scrutiny and review for more  than  three
decades.  While this Court has enunciated  the  law  and  put  to  rest  the
controversy arising in relation to one facet of the admission and  selection
process to the medical courses, because  of  ingenuity  of  the  authorities
involved in this  process,  even  more  complex  and  sophisticated  set  of
questions have come up for consideration of the Court with  the  passage  of
time.    One   can   hardly   find   any   infirmities,   inaccuracies    or
impracticalities in the prescribed scheme and  notifications  in  regard  to
the process of selection and grant of admission.  It is  the  arbitrary  and
colourable use of power and manipulation in implementation of  the  schedule
as well as the apparently perverse handling of the process by the  concerned
persons or the authorities involved,  in  collusion  with  the  students  or
otherwise, that have  rendered  the  entire  admission  process  faulty  and
questionable before the courts.  It is the admissions  granted  arbitrarily,
discriminately or in a manner repugnant to the regulations dealing with  the
subject that have invited judicial catechism.   With the  passage  of  time,
the quantum of this litigation has increased manifold.

3.             Thus, it is both the need of  the  hour  and  the  demand  of
justice that this Court clarifies its decision  and  states  the  principles
with greater precision so as to ensure elimination of colourable  abuse  and
arbitrary exercise of power in the process of  selection  and  admission  to
these professional courses by all concerned.

4.             Therefore, in our view,  though  the  present  appeal  arises
from very simple facts, yet it raises questions of  considerable  importance
and application.    These questions are bound to arise repeatedly  not  only
before this Court, but even before  the  High  Courts.    Therefore,  it  is
imperative for us to formulate the questions and answer them  in  accordance
with law.

5.             The questions are :-

     a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to  the
        Rule of Merit for preference  of  courses  and  colleges  regarding
        admission to such courses?

     b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic
        year is a date which admits any exception?

     c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can  mould
        it while ensuring adherence to the  rule  of  merit,  fairness  and
        transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?

     d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the court
        before passing orders which may be more  equitable,  but  still  in
        strict compliance with the framework of regulations  and  judgments
        of this court governing the subject?

6.             The appellant  cleared  her  Secondary  examination  (medical
stream) with  75%  marks  and  was  eligible  for  taking  medical  entrance
examination as she fulfilled the requisite criteria to take that exam.   Pt.
B.D.   Sharma   University   (for   short   ‘the   University’)   issued   a
notification/advertisement for the entrance examination for  MBBS,  BDS  and
BAMS to be held in the first week of May, 2011.  The appellant  applied  for
the same in the Backward Class ‘B’ (for short ‘BCB’) and  dependent  of  Ex-
Serviceman (ESM) category.  Her application was  accepted  and  roll  number
was issued to her.  The date of the examination was  fixed  for  12th  June,
2011 by the University.   The  appellant  was  declared  successful  in  the
entrance examination having secured 832 marks.  The appellant was at  serial
number 13 of the ESM category.  All concerned were informed that  the  first
counseling for allotment of seats was to be held on 14th -15th  July,  2011.
In this counseling, the appellant was not admitted to  MBBS  Course  as  she
was lower in merit. Consequently, she took admission in the  BDS  Course  on
that very day.  Thereafter, a declaration was made by the  respondents  that
the second counseling for allotment of seats in the  MBBS  course  would  be
held on 20th September, 2011.   The  appellant  again  participated  in  the
counseling but her name and roll number was not declared by the  respondents
for the said admissions.  However, when the list of allocation of seats  was
displayed, it came to light that though the appellant had not been  admitted
to the MBBS Course, candidates who ranked  below  her  in  the  merit  list,
including the respondent no.3, Vineeta Yadav, who  had  obtained  821  marks
and was at serial number 14 of the ESM Category, had  been  given  admission
to the MBBS Course.


7.             On the above facts, the learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High
   Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, observed  that  according  to
   the respondents, the  ‘appellant  left  the  counseling  place’  without
   appearing before the Counseling Board.    Resultantly,  her  candidature
   was not considered for admission  to  the  MBBS  course  under  the  ESM
   category and the candidate next in merit was given the  admission.    It
   was the opinion of the Court that it would be too far fetched to  accept
   that the appellant, though was physically present at the time of  taking
   of attendance, thumb impressions and photography, did not respond to the
   call for counseling at the relevant time.  Further, the  Court  observed
   that no reason whatsoever could be seen for absence of the appellant  at
   the relevant moment from the record before the Court.  In  view  of  the
   fact that the appellant had filed the writ petition within a week of the
   second counseling, the Court accepted the  facts  averred  in  the  writ
   petition and directed the respondents to admit the appellant to the MBBS
   course while further directing that it would be open for the respondents
   to see that admission of other students lower in merit is not cancelled,
   if so permissible and possible under the relevant Rules.


8.             Upon appeal, the Division  Bench  of  that  Court  upset  the
   judgment of the learned Single Judge and held as under:-


           “We find that such directions could not have been issued on  the
           basis of possibilities.   In view the process of counseling,  we
           find that the writ  petitioner  herself  has  failed  to  appear
           before the counseling board at the relevant time.    It  is  not
           that she has not got admission.   She is pursuing BDS course  at
           Rohtak whereas, the other  two  candidates  are  pursuing  their
           courses at PGI Rohtak and  Medical  College  Agroha.    At  this
           stage, to disturb the entire admission process would not in  the
           interest of academics when there is no substantive allegation in
           respect of admission process.”





           3 9.              The Division Bench also noticed the contention
of the respondents that the appellant was a student of the same college  and
other candidates were  even  outstation,  thus  it  was  possible  that  the
appellant was not present when the call for her name was made,  may  be  due
to her negligence or carelessness.


4 10.          The Court also observed that since there  was  no  allegation
     of mala fides against any member of the Counseling Board and there also
being no allegations of misconduct and favouritism, the  conclusion  arrived
     at by the learned Single Judge was not sustainable in law.


5 11.          The moot question  which  falls  for  consideration  of  this
      Court in view of the divergent views taken by the Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court is whether  the  decision  of  the  learned
      Single Judge is based on inferences or assumptions or whether it was a
      reasonable conclusion which the Court could arrive at in view  of  the
      pleadings of the parties and the relevant rules in force.


6 12.          Notification for the second counseling  was  issued  on  26th
      August, 2011.   The second counseling was to be held for admission  to
      MBBS and BDS courses in Government Aided Medical  Dental  Colleges  in
      the State of Haryana on 20th September, 2011  in  the  Office  of  the
      Director, Pandit B.D.  Sharma  University  of  Health  Sciences,  PGI,
      Rohtak, as per the schedule given therein.


13.            The notification inter alia also stated:-


| Date            |Reporting Time   |Category         |Rank            |
|20.09.2011       |8.00 A.M.        |General          |01 to 704       |
|                 |                 |(Common Merit    |                |
|                 |                 |List)            |                |
|                 |                 |SC               |01 to 65        |
|                 |                 |BCA              |01 to 144       |
|                 |                 |BCB              |01 to 150       |
|                 |                 |PH               |01              |
|                 |                 |ESM              |01 to 30        |
|                 |                 |FF               |01              |



14.            In furtherance to this notification, there is no  dispute  to
   the fact that the appellant, who was at Sr. No. 13 of ESM category,  had
   appeared before  the  authorities  and  marked  her  attendance  in  the
   attendance sheet on 20th September, 2011.   It is  interesting  to  note
   that the same sheet had been signed by  the  candidates  to  mark  their
   presence even on 15th July, 2011, when the first  counseling  was  held.
   The appellant had also  signed  on  15th  July,  2011  and,  as  already
   noticed, was given admission to the BDS course.


15.            Another important aspect which needs to be  noticed  at  this
   stage is the original merit list which  has  been  produced  before  us.
   This merit list relates to the date  of  first  counseling,  i.e.,  15th
   July, 2011.   According to the respondents, the appellant had been given
   admission to the BDS course but  in  this  merit  list  the  column  for
   signature in front of her name is empty.   This document does  not  have
   any of the members of the Board or any candidate specifying the date  of
   this counseling.   Therefore, we would take it  that  this  document  is
   dated and relates to the proceedings of 15th July, 2011.    If  that  be
   so, it is difficult to understand as to  how  the  appellant  was  given
   admission to the BDS course on 15th July, 2011 when nothing is noted  in
   front of her name.   It  does  not  even  say,  whether  she  was  given
   admission to MBBS or BDS course.   Interestingly, in the remark  column,
   the members of the Board have noted the candidates who have already been
   given admission to a college or who were not interested in BDS course or
   who had vacated the seat of BDS.    The merit list for  admission  dated
   20th September, 2011 has  not  been  placed  on  record.   There  is  no
   explanation available from the records produced before  us,  as  to  why
   this has not been  done.    It  has  also  not  been  clarified  in  the
   affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.


11 16.         We may notice that in  the  writ  petition  before  the  High
     Court the appellant had specifically averred that she  was  present  in
     the second counseling at the time of  attendance  and  even  subsequent
     thereto.  However, despite such presence, her name and roll number were
not declared by the respondents for the purpose of  admission  to  the  MBBS
     course.  However, the  list  of  successful  candidates  revealed  that
     candidates of merit lower to her had been admitted to the MBBS  course.
     According to her, she instantly raised her claim and even  submitted  a
     representation upon the respondents but to no avail.  Paragraphs 7 to 9
     of the writ petition read as follows :


           “7. That the respondents have decided to take second  counseling
               and the date for second counseling was fixed for  20.09.2011.
                The petitioner again participated in the  second  counseling
               but her name and roll number was again not  declared  by  the
               respondents for the said admission in the MBBS course.


           8.   That after the date of second  counseling,  the  petitioner
           was shocked to know that one Vinita Yadav daughter of Sh. Arvind
           Kumar Yadav Roll No. 126038 having the same category  i.e.  BCB-
           ESM and having 821 marks which is lower then the  marks  secured
           by the petitioner got admission in MBBS Course conducted by  the
           respondents.   The petitioner has  visited  the  office  of  the
           respondent just after getting the information that  a  candidate
           who is lower in merit/marks got admission  in  MBBS  Course  and
           requested the respondents  that  this  is  totally  illegal  and
           discriminatory  on  the  part  of  them  that  they  are  giving
           admission to a candidate who is having  lesser  marks  than  the
           petitioner but the respondents have not considered  her  genuine
           claim and legal rights and willfully ignored the request of  the
           petitioner.


           9.  That the petitioner has not continuously visited the  office
           of the respondents and raised her voice for  her  genuine  claim
           for the admission  in  MBBS  Course  and  she  has  specifically
           mentioned that a candidate having lesser marks  as  compared  to
           the petitioner has got admission in MBBS  course  but  in  vain.
           The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents
           mentioning everything about the  incident  but  the  respondents
           have not considered her request.   A  true  typed  copy  of  the
           representation is attached herewith as ANNEXURE P-3.”




17.            In the reply  filed  on  merits  by  the  respondents,  these
   paragraphs were dealt with in a  most  casual  manner  and  no  specific
   denial was made.   Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the reply read as under:-


           “7. That in reply to Para No. 7 of the petition  averments  made
           in  Para  No.  3  and  4  of  the  preliminary  submissions  are
           reiterated here.


           8.  That in reply to Para No. 8 of the petition it is  submitted
           that since the Petitioner  left  the  counseling  place  without
           appearing before the counseling board her  candidature  was  not
           considered for admission to MBBS course under ESM  category  and
           the Respondent No. 3 who was next in merit than  the  Petitioner
           got the admission in MBBS course under ESM category.   Averments
           made in Para No. 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions are also
           reiterated here.


           9.  That Para No. 9 of the writ petition is  wrong  and  denied.
           The Petitioner has never approached to the answering Respondents
           with regard to her admission in MBBS course after 2nd counseling
           as claimed in this para.   However,  in  any  case  she  is  not
           entitled for admission to MBBS  Course  under  ESM  category  in
           present circumstances in view of facts mentioned in Para No.  2,
           3 & 4 of the preliminary submissions.”



18.            From a bare reading of the reply filed  by  the  respondents,
it is clear that there is no specific denial of  the  above-noted  averments
made by the appellant. It is a settled principle of  the  law  of  pleadings
that an averment made by  the  appellant  is  expected  to  be  specifically
denied by the replying party.   If there is no specific  denial,  then  such
averment is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent.  In the  present
case, it is evident that the above-noted  averments  in  the  writ  petition
were relevant and material to the case.  In fact, the  entire  case  of  the
appellant hinged on these three paragraphs of  the  writ  petition.  It  was
thus, expected of the respondents to reply these averments specifically,  in
fact  to  make  a  proper  reference  to  the  records  relevant  to   these
paragraphs.  In view of the omission on part of the respondents to refer  to
any relevant records and failure to specifically deny the averments made  by
the appellant, we are of the considered view that  the  appellant  has  been
able to make out a case for interference.

19.            Not only this, if the  averments  made  in  paragraph  9  are
correct and the appellant had instantaneously raised her  claim  before  the
respondents, followed by making of the representation, we see no reason  why
the claim of the appellant could not be settled at that time or in any  case
in the subsequent  counseling  held  on  30th  September,  2011,  where  the
appellant was admittedly present.   The attendance sheet produced before  us
shows that the appellant was present on  all  the  three  days.    Even  the
records produced by the respondents before the Court  support  the  case  of
the appellant.

20.            The appellant filed the writ petition before the  High  Court
without any undue delay and on 4th  November,  2011,  the  judgment  by  the
court was passed in her favour.  The cumulative effect of the above  factual
matrix, the pleadings of the parties and the  expeditious  manner  in  which
the appellant had taken action before the authorities and  then  before  the
court and pursued her remedies, persuade the Court to believe that the  case
of the appellant is truthful.   The  cases  of  the  present  kind  are  not
required to be tested by us on the touchstone  of  stringent  principles  of
burden  of  proof  applicable  to  criminal  jurisprudence.     As   already
mentioned, it was the obligation of the  respondents  to  specifically  deny
the averments made by the appellant and to produce the relevant  records  to
show that the stand taken by them is worthy of credence.  Having  failed  to
do so, they cannot shift the burden  upon  the  appellant  and  expect  this
Court to believe that a student of the same college, would disappear at  the
relevant time  of  counseling  after  having  marked  her  presence  at  the
counseling.

21.            It is not necessary for the  appellant  to  plead  and  prove
   mala fides, misconduct or favouritism and nepotism on the  part  of  the
   parties  concerned.   Failure  to  do  the  same  could  be  an   error,
   intentional or otherwise, but in either event, we see no reason why  the
   appellant should be made to suffer despite being a candidate  of  higher
   merit.


22.            At this stage, we may  refer  to  certain  judgments  of  the
   Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has
   to be merit alone.   In fact, merit, fairness and transparency  are  the
   ethos of the process  for  admission  to  such  courses.    It  will  be
   travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the
   states, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy  or
   improper methods of admission.  There cannot be any  circumstance  where
   the Rule of merit can be compromised.   From the facts  of  the  present
   case, it is evident that merit has been a casuality.   It will be useful
   to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that  merit  alone
   is the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of  merit  is  not
   only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. Ref.   Priya
   Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr. [CA @ SLP(C) No.  27089  of  2011,
   decided on 8th May, 2012], Harshali v. State of Maharashtra  and  Others
   [(2005) 13 SCC 464], Pradeep Jain v. UOI [1984  (3)  SCC  654],  Sharwan
   Kumar and Others v. Director of Health Services and Another  [1993  Supp
   (1) SCC 632], Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP [(1999) 7 SCC 120],  Guru
   Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and  Others  [2005  (13)  SCC  749],
   AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 428].


16 23.         It is true that the notification dated 26th August, 2011  had
clearly  stated  that  the  candidate  should  appear  before   the   second
Counseling Board well in time along with  all  the  original  documents  and
that the photograph and thumb impression of the candidate would be taken  at
the time of the counseling.   The notification stated the reporting time  as
8.00 a.m.  The  exact  time  when  the  candidates  of  each  category  i.e.
General, SC, PH (MS), EMS and FF were to be present was nowhere stated.   In
other words all candidates were required to be present  at  8.00  a.m..   It
cannot be  disputed  that  the  appellant  was  present  at  that  time  and
undisputedly she had marked her presence in the attendance  register.    She
admittedly participated in the photography and taking of  thumb  impressions
held by the concerned authority.   However, her absence at the crucial  time
of counseling is the essence of dispute in the present case.


17  24.          Adherence  to  the  schedule  is  the  obligation  of   the
authorities and the students  both.    The  prescribed  schedule  is  to  be
maintained stricto sensu by  all  the  stakeholders  because  if  one  party
adheres to the schedule and others do not or there is some kind of  lack  of
communication or omission to make proper announcements and  maintain  proper
records for such counseling, disastrous results can  follow,  of  which  the
present case is an apt example.


18 25.    The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions  relate  to
professional courses and the entire life  of  a  student  depends  upon  his
admission to a particular course. Every  candidate  of  higher  merit  would
always  aspire  admission  to  the   course   which   is   more   promising.
Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over  BDS  given  the
high-competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction  of  a  mark,
the admission to course could vary.  Higher the competition, greater is  the
duty on the part of the concerned authorities to act with utmost caution  to
ensure transparency and fairness.  It is one of  their  primary  obligations
to see that  a  candidate  of  higher  merit  is  not  denied  seat  to  the
appropriate course  and  college,  as  per  his  preference.    We  are  not
oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is  a  cumbersome  task
for the authorities but that per se cannot  be  a  ground  for  compromising
merit.   The  concerned  authorities  are  expected   to   perform   certain
functions, which must  be  performed  in  a  fair  and  proper  manner  i.e.
strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations.


26.            Strict adherence to  the  time  schedule  has  again  been  a
   matter of controversy before the courts.   The courts have  consistently
   taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like the  rule  of  merit
   and all the stakeholders  including  the  concerned  authorities  should
   adhere to it and should in no circumstances permit its violation.  This,
   in our opinion, gives rise to dual problem.    Firstly,  it  jeopardizes
   the interest and future  of  the  students.   Secondly,  which  is  more
   serious, is that such action would be ex-  facie  in  violation  of  the
   orders of the court, and therefore, would invite  wrath  of  the  courts
   under the provisions of the Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971.   In  this
   regard, we may appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in the
   cases of Priya Gupta (supra),  State of Bihar v. Sanjay  Kumar  Sinha  &
   Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624], Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh &  Ors.
   [(2002)  7  SCC  258],  GSF  Medical  and  Paramedical  Association   v.
   Association of Management of Self  Financing  Technical  Institutes  and
   Anr. [2003 (12) SCC 414], Christian Medical College v. State  of  Punjab
   and Others [(2010) 12 SCC 167].


27.   The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the  land  in  terms
   of Article 141 of the Constitution and the  regulations  framed  by  the
   Medical Council of India are statutorily having the force of law and are
   binding  on  all  the  concerned  parties.     Various  aspects  of  the
   admission process as  of  now  are  covered  either  by  the  respective
   notifications issued by the State Governments, prospectus issued by  the
   colleges and, in any case, by the  regulations  framed  by  the  Medical
   Council of India.  There is no reason why every act of  the  authorities
   be not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and why  due
   records thereof be not maintained.


28.            This proposition of law or this issue is no more res  integra
   and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various judgments  which
   may usefully be referred at this stage.  Ref. State of M.P. v. Gopal  D.
   Tirthani and Others [(2003) 7 SCC  83],  State  of  Punjab  v.  Dayanand
   Medical College  &  Hospital  and  Ors.  [AIR  2001  SC  3006],  Bharati
   Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra and  Another  [(2004)  11  SCC  755],
   Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others  v.  State  of  Gujarat  and  Others
   [(2011) 3 SCC 617], Harish Verma  and  Others  v.  Ajay  Srivastava  and
   Another [(2003) 8 SCC 69].


29.            In the prospectus issued by the respondents, Chapter 9  dealt
   with the method of selection and admission.   Clause 3.1 stated that  it
   was  mandatory  for  the  qualified  candidates  to  appear  before  the
   Counseling Board in person.  No  relaxation  was  to  be  given  to  the
   candidates who were unable to appear before the Counseling Board on  the
   fixed dates.  Further, it was stated in the prospectus that at the  time
   of the counseling, the candidates would be required  to  exercise  their
   choice for the institution and the course.   The allotment of the  seats
   would be made according to the merit and  preference  exercised  by  the
   candidates at the time of counseling. During the  subsequent  counseling
   the Course/Institution would  be  allotted  as  per  the  merit  of  the
   candidates depending on the availability of seats.


30.            All these clauses are  in  accordance  with  the  regulations
   framed by the Medical Council of India or the  notifications  issued  by
   the concerned State Government. Relaxation of  the  Rule  of  Merit  for
   reason of non-appearance is not  permissible.    In  the  present  case,
   there is no dispute that the appellant was present at the place  and  on
   the date of the second counseling but the dispute relates to her absence
   at the particular time when her name was called out for the  purpose  of
   counseling.   As far  as  this  issue  is  concerned,  we  have  already
   expressed the opinion that there is no substance in the defence taken by
   the respondents and the appellant  should  be  entitled  to  the  relief
   prayed for.  However, the question that immediately follows  is  whether
   any mid-term admission can  be  granted  after  30th  September  of  the
   concerned academic year, that  being the last date for admissions.   The
   respondents before us have argued  with  some  vehemence  that  it  will
   amount to a mid-term admission which is impermissible,  will  result  in
   indiscipline and will cause prejudice to other candidates.  Reliance has
   been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of India
   v. Madhu Singh and Others [(2002)  7  SCC  258],  Ms.  Neelu  Arora  and
   Another v. Union of India and Others  [(2003)  3  SCC  366],  Aman  Deep
   Jaswal v. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 9 SCC 597], Medical Council
   of India v. Naina Verma and Others [(2005) 12 SCC 626], Mridul Dhar  and
   Another v Union of India and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 65],  Medical  Council
   of India v Madhu Singh and Others [(2002) 7 SCC 258].


31.            There is no doubt that 30th September is  the  cut-off  date.
   The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which  is
   specifically postulated.    But where no  fault  is  attributable  to  a
   candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should  the
   cut-off date be permitted to operate as  a  bar  to  admission  to  such
   students particularly when it would result in complete  ruining  of  the
   professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we  have
   to answer.  Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault  and  she
   pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are  of
   the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a  technical
   instrument or tool to deny admission to a  meritorious  students.    The
   rule of merit stands completely defeated in the  facts  of  the  present
   case.  The appellant was a candidate placed higher in  the  merit  list.
   It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit  much  lower  to  her
   have already been given admission in the MBBS course.  The appellant had
   attained 832 marks while the students who had attained  821,  792,  752,
   740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM  category
   in the MBBS course.   It is not only unfortunate but  apparently  unfair
   that the appellant be denied admission.  Though there can be  rarest  of
   rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the  courts  may  have  to
   mould the relief  and  make  exception  to  the  cut-off  date  of  30th
   September, but in those cases, the Court must  first  return  a  finding
   that no fault is  attributable  to  the  candidate,  the  candidate  has
   pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously  without  any  delay
   and that there is fault on the part  of  the  authorities  and  apparent
   breach of some rules, regulations  and  principles  in  the  process  of
   selection and grant of admission.  Where denial  of  admission  violates
   the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would  be
   completely unjust and unfair to deny  such  exceptional  relief  to  the
   candidate.  [Refer Arti Sapru and Others v. State of J &  K  and  Others
   [(1981) 2 SCC 484]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director General  Health  Services
   [(1994) 2 SCC 370]; and Aravind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and  Others
   [(2001) 8 SCC 355].


25 32.         We must hasten to add  at  this  stage  that  even  if  these
conditions are satisfied, still, the court would be called  upon  to  decide
whether the relief should or should not be granted and, if  granted,  should
it be with or without compensation.


33.            This brings us to the last phase of  this  case  as  to  what
   relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to.  Having returned a finding
   on merits in favour of the appellant, the Court has to grant  relief  to
   the appellant even, if necessary, by moulding the  relief  appropriately
   and in accordance with law.  This Court must do complete justice between
   the parties, particularly, where the legitimate right of  the  appellant
   stands frustrated because of inaction or  inappropriate  action  on  the
   part of the concerned respondents.  In fact, normally  keeping  in  view
   the factual matrix of this case, we would have directed the admission of
   the appellant to the MBBS course in  the  academic  year  2011-2012  and
   would further have directed the respondents to pay compensation  to  the
   appellant towards the mental agony and expense  of  litigation  and  the
   valuable period of her life that stands wasted for failure on  the  part
   of the respondents to adhere to the proper procedure  of  selection  and
   admission process.  May be the Court  would  have  granted  this  relief
   subject to some further conditions.  However, we  are  unable  to  grant
   this relief to the appellant in its  totality  for  reason  of  her  own
   doing.  She has completely faulted in pursuing her  academic  course  in
   accordance with the Rules and like a diligent student should do.  In the
   reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it has been stated that
   as per the Dental Council of India Norms, minimum required attendance is
   75 per  cent  in  Theory  as  well  as  in  Practical  of  each  subject
   individually  for  issuance  of  roll  numbers  in   the   BDS   course.
   Undoubtedly, the appellant was admitted to the BDS course  and  she  was
   expected to complete her academic course in terms of the Norms of Dental
   Council of India.  It is also not disputed before us and, in  fact,  was
   confirmed to us on behalf of  the  Medical  Council  of  India  and  the
   respondent University that the course for the first year  of  both,  BDS
   and MBBS, is more or less the same.  Except one paper of  Anatomy,  rest
   of the subjects and papers are more or less similar particularly for the
   first six months.  If the appellant had pursued the BDS course to  which
   she was admitted diligently and had attended all the lectures, she might
   have been eligible to pursue her MBBS course  in  continuation  thereto.
   We are not recording any finding in this behalf as, in our opinion,  the
   appellant  is  not  entitled  to  this  particular  relief,  as  already
   indicated, and for the same she has to blame none else but herself.

34.            In the reply, the respondents have specifically explained  by
the figures on record that the appellant had attended only 28  per  cent  to
42 per cent lectures (minimum being 28% and  maximum  42%)  instead  of  the
required 75 per cent and as such she has not even  pursued  her  BDS  course
properly.  The table given in the reply reads as under :



|S.No. |Name of Deptt.     |Practical             |Theory                 |
|      |                   |Lect.  |Lec.   |%age   |Lect.  |Lec.    |%age   |
|      |                   |Deliv. |Attnd. |       |Deliv. |Attnd.  |       |
|1.    |Prosthodontics     |95     |22     |23%    |Nil    |Nil     |Nil    |
|2.    |Dental Anatomy     |93     |31     |33%    |95     |28      |29%    |
|3.    |Dental Material    |Nil    |Nil    |Nil    |35     |13      |37%    |
|4.    |Anatomy            |125    |39     |31%    |86     |25      |29%    |
|5.    |Physiology         |30     |09     |30%    |94     |27      |28%    |
|6.    |Biochemistry       |32     |12     |37%    |59     |25      |42%    |


35.            From the above data, it  is  clear  that  the  appellant  has
miserably failed to pursue her BDS course  in  accordance  with  Rules  and,
thus, she has  not  fulfilled  even  the  pre-requisites  for  MBBS  course,
assuming that the BDS and  MBBS  courses  are  similar  for  the  first  six
months.  In these circumstances and finding that the appellant is  at  fault
to this limited extent, we are of the considered view that the  only  relief
the appellant can be granted in the present appeal is  a  direction  to  the
respondents to give the appellant admission to the MBBS course  not  in  the
academic year 2011-12 but in the current academic year i.e. 2012-2013,  that
too, subject to the condition that she will pursue  her  MBBS  course  right
from the beginning without any advantage of her course in the BDS.   If  any
examinations have been held in the meanwhile, it shall be  deemed  that  she
had not appeared in those examinations  and  be  treated  as  such  for  all
intent and  purpose.   While  giving  her  admission  to  the  MBBS  course,
preferably and if  it  is  permissible,  admission  of  none  of  the  other
candidates to the MBBS course may be disturbed.  If  for  whatever  reasons,
it is not possible to do so, in that event, the candidate last in the  merit
who has been granted admission to the MBBS course shall  be  transferred  to
the BDS course and appellant shall be admitted to the MBBS course.  We  also
direct that such candidate would not be required  to  commence  her/his  BDS
course  from  the  beginning  provided  the  candidate  has  satisfied   the
attendance requirements of the Dental Council of India.

36.            Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us  in
the opening part of this judgment.

ANSWERS

a)             The rule of merit for  preference  of  courses  and  colleges
       admits no exception.  It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and
       concerned authorities are required to follow this rule  strictly  and
       without demur.

b)             30th September is undoubtedly the  last  date  by  which  the
       admitted students should report to their respective colleges  without
       fail.  In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding  of
       second counseling by 15th September of the relevant academic year [in
       terms of  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Priya  Gupta  (supra)].
       Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional  cases  of  unequivocal
       discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission  may
       be permissible but such power may  preferably  be  exercised  by  the
       courts.  Further, it will be in the rarest of rare  cases  and  where
       the ends of justice would be subverted or the process  of  law  would
       stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their  extra-ordinary
       jurisdiction  of  admitting  candidates  to  the  courses  after  the
       deadline of 30th September  of  the  current  academic  year.   This,
       however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this  Court  in
       the case of Priya Gupta (supra) and this judgment  are  found  to  be
       unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor  are  recorded  by
       the court of competent jurisdiction.

c) & d) Wherever the court finds that action of  the  authorities  has  been
       arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and  violative  of
       the Rules, regulations and  conditions  of  the  prospectus,  causing
       prejudice to the rights  of  the  students,  the  Court  shall  award
       compensation to  such  students  as  well  as  direct  initiation  of
       disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials.  The court
       shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt  of  Courts
       Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring  authorities  irrespective
       of their stature and empowerment.

               Where the admissions given by the concerned  authorities  are
       found by the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no
       reason to permit the students to continue with the course,  the  mere
       fact that such students have put in a year or so  into  the  academic
       course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with  the
       course.

37.            With all humility, we reiterate  the  request  that  we  have
made to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta’s case (supra)  that  the  courts
should avoid giving interim  orders  where  admissions  are  the  matter  of
dispute before the Court.  Even in case where the candidates  are  permitted
to continue with the courses, they should normally be not permitted to  take
further examinations of the professional courses.  The students  who  pursue
the courses under the orders of the Court would not  be  entitled  to  claim
any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it  weigh  with  the
courts of competent jurisdiction.



38.            Besides providing the above  answers  to  the  questions,  we
also issue the following directions  to  put  the  matters  to  rest  beyond
ambiguity and to ensure that the authorities act in accordance with law :


(a)            From  the  records  of  this  case,  it  is  clear  that  two
       different records are being maintained at  the  time  of  counseling.
       Firstly, the attendance register and thereafter photography and thumb
       impressions are taken and, secondly, the Committee maintains a record
       of the counseling where the students are actually  given  a  specific
       college/course of his/her preference.  We direct that the second  set
       of records shall be maintained more accurately.  It  shall  not  only
       contain the signatures of the candidate and the Committee members but
       also the date and time when the candidate is  given  a  seat  and  it
       shall also be signed by the candidate with the course clearly written
       by the Committee and signed by the candidate in the remarks column.


(b)            The essence of all the judgments dealing with this  issue  is
       to nurture discipline, fairness and transparency in the selection and
       admission process and avoid prejudice to any  of  the  stake-holders.
       Thus, while we  expect  the  authorities  to  be  perfect,  fair  and
       transparent in the discharge of their duties, we make it  clear  that
       the students who adopt malpractices in collusion with the authorities
       or otherwise for seeking admissions and if their admissions are found
       to be irregular or faulty in law by the courts, they  shall  normally
       be held responsible for paying compensation to such other  candidates
       who have been denied admission as a result of admission of the  wrong
       candidates.


(c)            The law requires adherence  to  a  settled  protocol  in  the
       process of selection and grant of admission.  None should be able  to
       circumvene or trounce this  process,  with  or  without  an  ulterior
       motive.  The courts are duty bound to ensure that litigation relating
       to academic courses, particularly, professional courses should not be
       generated for want of will on the part of the stake holders to follow
       the process of selection  and  admission  fairly,  transparently  and
       without exploitation.


(d)            Keeping in mind the hard reality that  there  are  number  of
       petitions filed in each High Court of the country, on  the  one  hand
       challenging the admissions on varied grounds  while,  on  the  other,
       praying  for  grant  of  admission  on  merit   to   the   respective
       professional courses of MBBS/BDS, the Court cannot lose sight of  the
       fact that the career of the meritorious youth is at stake.  These are
       matters relating to adherence to the  rule  of  merit  and  when  its
       breach is complained of, the judiciary may be expected to  deal  with
       the said grievances preferentially and effectively.  The diversity of
       our country and the fact that the larger population  lives  in  rural
       areas and there being demand for consistent increase in the  strength
       of qualified medical practitioners, we are  of  the  considered  view
       that such cases, at least as of now and particularly for  a  specific
       period of the year require higher priority in the heavy  business  of
       court cases.  We are not oblivious  of  the  fact  that  the  Hon’ble
       Judges of the High Court are working under great  pressure  and  with
       some limitations.  However, we would still  make  a  request  to  the
       Hon’ble Chief Justices  of  the  respective  High  Courts  to  direct
       listing of all medical admission cases before one Bench of the  Court
       as far as possible and in accordance with the Rules  of  that  Court.
       It would further be highly appreciable if the said Bench is requested
       to deal with such cases within a definite period, particularly during
       the period from July to October of a particular year.  We  express  a
       pious hope that our  request  would  weigh  with  the  Hon’ble  Chief
       Justices of the respective High Courts as it would  greatly  help  in
       serving the ends of justice as well as the national interest.


39.            For the reasons afore-recorded and  with  the  directions  as
mentioned above, we  direct  the  respondents  to  grant  admission  to  the
appellant to the MBBS course in the current academic  year  subject  to  the
condition that she will pursue her MBBS course right from its beginning  and
to the conditions afore-noticed.  However, in the  facts  and  circumstances
of the case, we award no costs.


               Appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                        .…................................J.
                                                           [Swatanter Kumar]



                                        .…................................J.
                                                              [Ranjan Gogoi]
New Delhi;
July 10, 2012