* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 705: 2024 INSC 235
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas
v.
The Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4427-4428 of 2024)
20 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to MBBS admission to a Maharashtra State domicile
in Maharashtra despite his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra
as a paramilitary personnel.
Headnotes
Education/Educational Institutions – Medical admission –
Cancellation – Appellant-domicile of Maharashtra and son
of Constable in BSF, passed his SSC and HSC exams from
an institution outside the State of Maharashtra – Applied for
admission to an MBBS course under the Other Backward
Class/Non-Creamy Layer category – Despite being issued a
provisional selection letter, his admission was cancelled – Writ
petition challenging the cancellation on the ground that he
was entitled to the exception under clause 4.8 of the NEET
UG-2023 Information Brochure pertaining to the ‘Children of
employees of Government of India or its Undertaking’ – High
Court dismissed the petition holding that the appellant did
not satisfy the requirements of clauses 4.8 and 9.4.4 of the
Brochure since he did not select specified reservation, in the
category of Children of Defence personnel while submitting
the online application form – Correctness:
Held: As per clause 4.8.1 of Information Brochure, the children
of employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking have
been made eligible for admission even though they might have
passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent exam from a recognised
institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra – However,
while making such relaxation, a condition has been imposed that
the employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the
parent of the candidate should have been transferred back to the
State of Maharashtra and also have reported for duty and must
706 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
be working as on the last date of the document verification at a
place located in Maharashtra – This condition creates a stipulation
which would be impossible for the candidate or his parent to
fulfill – Place of posting is not within the control of the employee
or the candidate – Candidate born in Maharashtra and whose
parents are also domicile of the State of Maharashtra and are
employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, such
candidate would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State
quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent because
the place of deployment would not be under the control of the
candidate or his parents – Impugned judgment is unsustainable
in facts as well as in law – Furthermore, letter/communication
cancelling the admission without giving opportunity to show cause
also illegal and arbitrary – More than six months have passed
by since the session started and no seat is lying vacant in any
college in Maharashtra State quota as on date – Appellant has
been illegally deprived from his rightful admission in the first year
of the MBBS course owing to the insensitive, unjust, illegal and
arbitrary approach of the respondents and so also on account
of the delay occasioned in the judicial process – As regards the
restitutive relief, it would neither be desirable nor justifiable to
grant admission to the appellant in the on-going session of the
MBBS(UG) course – However, the appellant entitled to restoration
of his seat in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same
college in the next session-NEET UG-2024 – Impugned orders set
aside – Respondents-college and the State to pay compensation
to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 50,000/-) each to the appellant for
the deprivation of one year and harassment on the account of
illegal and arbitrary cancellation of admission. [Paras 21-23, 26,
28, 31, 32]
Case Law Cited
Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar v. Dean, Govt. Medical
College, Nagpur and others (1986) SCC OnLine Bom
262; Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa v. State of Maharashtra
(through it’s Dept of Medical Education and Drugs &
Others) (2000) SCC Online Bom 359; Manoj Kumar v.
Union of India and Others [2024] 2 SCR 409 : (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 163; S. Krishna Sradha v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others [2017] 2 SCR 466 : (2017)
4 SCC 516 – referred to.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 707
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
List of Keywords
Admission to MBBS course; Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy
Layer category; Children of employees of Government of India or
its Undertaking; Specified reservation in the category of Children of
Defence personnel; Place of posting; Domicile of State; Cancelling
the admission; Compensation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.4427-4428 of
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2023 in WP No.5141 of
2023 and dated 26.10.2023 in MCAR No.980 of 2023 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur
Appearances for Parties
Kshitij Kothale, Satyajit A Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K.
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ananya
Thapliyal, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sarad Kumar Singhania, Mrs Rashmi Singhania, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh,
Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court for assailing orders dated
5th September, 2023 and 26th October, 2023 passed by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition
No. 5141 of 2023 and Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 980 of
2023 in Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023, respectively.
3. The appellant is a domicile of the State of Maharashtra and his
father is employed in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Head
Constable (General Duty) [HC(GD)]. Owing to the deployment of his
father outside the State of Maharashtra, the appellant was compelled
708 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to complete his Secondary School Certificate (Standard X)(SSC)
and Higher School Certificate (Standard XII)(HSC) education from
a school outside the State of Maharashtra.
4. The appellant appeared in NEET-UG, 2023 craving admission in the
undergraduate MBBS course against the State quota and upon being
found meritorious, he was issued a provisional selection letter (CAP1)
by the State Common Entrance Cell, Maharashtra on 4th August, 2023
and was allotted a seat in respondent No.6-College. The appellant
completed the requisite formalities and paid an amount of Rs.13,500/-by
way of admission fees. It may be noted that the appellant had applied
for admission under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer
(OBC/NCL) category as being domicile of the State of Maharashtra.
5. However, without issuing notice and without providing any opportunity
of being heard to the appellant, respondent No.6-College issued a
letter/communication dated 9th August, 2023 cancelling the admission
of the appellant.
6. The letter/communication cancelling the admission was challenged
by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023 before
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench raising a pertinent ground
that the appellant was entitled to the exception as provided under
clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Information Brochure’) which pertains to the ‘Children
of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking’ and that
cancellation of his admission was totally illegal and arbitrary.
7. The High Court, after considering the entirety of facts and
circumstances dismissed the Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023 vide order
dated 5th September, 2023 holding that the appellant did not satisfy the
requirements of clauses 4.8 and 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure. It
was held that since the appellant did not select specified reservation
i.e., in the category of Children of Defence personnel(DEF), while
submitting the online application form, he was precluded from raising
such a claim at a belated stage, as being impermissible in view of
the rider contained in clause 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 5th September,
2023, the appellant filed Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 980 of
2023 which too was rejected vide order dated 26th October, 2023.
These two orders are assailed in the present appeals.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 709
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
9. Mr. Kshitij Kothale, learned counsel representing the appellant urged
that the High Court misconstrued the appellant’s claim to be one
under Children of Defence personnel(DEF) category because the
appellant had sought admission under the OBC/NCL category as
being domicile of the State of Maharashtra.
10. He contended that the appellant and his parents are domicile of
the State of Maharashtra. The appellant fulfils the requisite criteria
for being admitted in the State quota and stood in merit and was
allotted a seat in the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of the State
of Maharashtra and, thus, cancellation of appellant’s admission by
the order dated 9th August 2023 is absolutely unjust and arbitrary
in addition to being in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
11. Learned counsel urged that two Division Benches of the Bombay
High Court, one at Nagpur Bench in Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar
v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Nagpur and others1
and the other
at Principal Seat at Bombay in Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa v. State
of Maharashtra(through it’s Dept of Medical Education and Drugs
& Others2 examined a similar set of rules/guidelines as prevailing in
the present case and while reading down the rules, provided relief
to the candidates therein who were similarly circumstanced as the
appellant. He placed reliance on the following excerpts(infra) from
the judgment in the case of Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar(supra)
and contended that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law
and the appellant herein deserves the relief sought for by directing
the respondents to create an additional seat and thereby protecting
admission of the appellant in the ongoing session of MBBS (UG)
course:-
“3. Shri Kherdekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
contended that having regard to the object of the Rules,
its background, the language used in Clause B(5) and
the ratio of various Supreme Court decisions on the
validity of various reservations on region/residence basis,
the requirement of passing Indian School Certificate
Examination “from an institution located in Maharashtra
State” is not intended to be applied to the candidates
1 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 262
2 2000 SCC Online Bom 359
710 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
covered by Rule B(3). It seems to us that the contention
is well-founded. Course and the examination of the Indian
School Certificate Examination is common all over India.
Serviceman has no control on his posting which can be
anywhere. Rule of denial of admission to a meritorious son/
daughter of a serviceman who is domicile of Maharashtra
only because of a fortuitous circumstance of his being not
posted at the time of his ward studying in 12th Standard
within the State of Maharashtra cannot have any nexus to
the object of the Rule. Mere chance cannot be the valid
disqualifying factor. Such a Rule will not only be arbitrary
and unreasonable but will permit discrimination between
two classes of servicemen of Maharashtra domicile lactually
posted at material time (i) in Maharashtra and (ii) outside
Maharashtra. This classification will be clearly invidious
having no nexus whatsoever to the object sought to be
achieved. Supreme Court has repeatedly held against
denial of admissions only on the basis of residence
and/or region. Canons of interpretation mandates that
interpretation which leads to unconstitutionality has to be
avoided, and harmonious construction to be preferred, if
possible. Thus the Rule will have to be interpreted keeping
the above principles in view. The Rule is not clearly worded
and does present some difficulty in construing it. It is not as
if that Clause C applies universally and without exception
to all admissions under the Rule. Take for example cases
covered by Rule B(4)(iii) — reservation for son or daughter
of Non-resident Indians of Maharashtra origin. Even 20 per
cent seats out of category B(3) are reserved for Defence
Personnel transferred to the Maharashtra Region. It is in
this light and background that Rule B(5) has to be read.
The terminology “after excluding validly reserved seats”
used in Rule B(5) is significant. It means that all parts of
Clause C do not universally apply to validly reserved seats
under Clause B. This is not to suggest that no part of
Clause C applies to any varieties of reservations mentioned
in Clause B. All will depend upon a specie of reservation
and its intendment. Construed in that light it seems to
us that the last part of Rule C(3)(ii) reading as “from an
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 711
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
institution located in Maharashtra State” is not intended to
be applied to candidate covered by Clause B(3).”
12. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents
controverted the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel.
He submitted that the appellant could not have been considered for
admission under OBC/NCL category under the State quota because
he is not covered under clauses 4.5, 4.6 & 4.8 of the Information
Brochure. The appellant did not stake a claim for admission in
defence personnel quota and hence, he could not have been
given a seat under the said category by virtue of the stipulations
contained in clause 9.4.4 of the guidelines. On these grounds, he
sought dismissal of the appeals.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned orders.
14. There is no dispute that the appellant and his parents are domicile
of the State of Maharashtra. The appellant’s father is serving in
the Border Security Force(BSF). Owing to deployment of his father
outside the State of Maharashtra, the appellant passed his SSC and
HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra.
15. Clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure provides an exception/
relaxation for claiming seat in the Maharashtra State quota to
Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking
who have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent examination
from the recognized institutions situated outside the State of
Maharashtra. However, this clause imposes a rider that such
employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the
parent of the candidate seeking admission in the course under
the State quota “must have been transferred from outside the
State of Maharashtra at a place of work, located in the State of
Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty and must
be working as on the last date of document verification at a
place located in the State of Maharashtra”. The appellant’s father
was deployed outside the State of Maharashtra in connection with
service of the nation and thus, proviso to Clause 4.8 was relied
upon by the respondents while cancelling the admission granted to
the appellant in CAP1.
(emphasis supplied)
712 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. Undisputably, but for the above rider in the guidelines, the appellant
is qualified to seek admission in the State Domicile (OBC/NCL)
category by virtue of clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure and
also stands in merit. However, the proviso creates a situation which
would be impossible for the appellant to surmount. The appellant who
is a domicile of the State of Maharashtra, cannot control the place
of deployment of his father who is serving in the paramilitary force
i.e., Border Security Force(BSF). Needless to state that the place of
deployment cannot be the choice of the employee serving in the armed
forces or a paramilitary force. Being the child of a soldier serving on
the country’s frontiers, the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted
out to the appellant under the guidelines cannot be countenanced.
The High Court, while denying relief to the appellant held that he had
not selected any specified reservation under the head of Children of
Defence personnel(DEF) as provided in Clause 9.4.4 of the Information
Brochure. However, the fact remains that the appellant had submitted
his OBC/NCL credentials/certificates along with the application form
and, his claim for admission was clearly against the Maharashtra State
quota as being a domicile of the State of Maharashtra whose father
was deployed as a Head Constable(General Duty)[HC(GD)] in BSF.
17. The appellant’s application was considered favourably and vide
communication dated 4th August, 2023, he was granted admission
in respondent No.6-College. He also paid the admission fees etc.
However, without issuing any notice and without providing opportunity
of being heard to the appellant, respondent No.6-College issued the
letter/communication dated 9th August, 2023 cancelling his admission
in the course. The said letter/communication was promptly challenged
by the appellant by filing the captioned writ petition before the Nagpur
Bench of the Bombay High Court on the very next day i.e. 10th August,
2023 and he was also provided interim protection by the Court.
18. Before the High Court, the appellant had placed reliance on
the Division Bench judgment in the case of Archana Sudhakar
Mandulkar(supra). The relevant guidelines/rules of admission as
extracted in the judgment of Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar(supra)
are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
“Relevant Clauses of Rules for admission (M.B.B.S.)
1986–87:
Clause B deals with “Reservations”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 713
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
Sub clause (1) of Clause B refers to Backward Class etc.,
sub-clause (2) to Central Government, sub-clause (3) to
sons and daughters of servicemen and ex-servicemen, subclause (4) to miscellaneous other reservations including
son/daughter of Nonresident Indians of Maharashtra origin
and sub-clause (5) to Regional Reservation.
Clause B(3) reads thus:—
“(3) Reservation for sons and daughters of servicemen
and ex-servicemen— 5 percent seats of the intake
capacity of the college limited to five shall be reserved
for the children of servicemen as well as ex-servicemen
who are domiciles of Maharashtra. The seats so reserved
are inclusive of merit;
Clause B(5) reads thus:-
“(5) Regional Reservation— Subject to the exception
mentioned in Rule C(6)(iv) below, 70 percent of open
seats, after excluding validly reserved seats, available
in Government Medical Colleges situated within the
jurisdiction of any University in Maharashtra, shall be
reserved for the candidates who are eligible as per Rule C
below and have passed the requisite qualifying examination
from the School/College situated within the jurisdiction of
the same University.”
19. The relevant extract from guidelines/rules of admission prevailing
in NEET-UG, 2023 germane to the controversy at hand is quoted
hereinbelow for sake of ready reference: -
“4.8 Exception for SSC (10th) and HSC (12th) or
equivalent examinations:
Children of employees of Government of India or its
Undertakings:-
4.8.1 The children of the employees of Government of
India or its Undertaking shall be eligible for admission even
though they might have passed the S.S.C. (Std.X) and/or
H.S.C. (Std. XII) or equivalent exam from the recognized
Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra,
provided that such an employee of Government of India or
714 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
its Undertaking must have been transferred from outside
State of Maharashtra at a place of work, located in the
State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty
and must be working as on the last date of Document
verification at a place located in Maharashtra.
4.8.2….”
20. On going through the extracted portion of the Division Bench judgment
in the case of Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar(supra), we find that in
an almost identical situation which prevails in the case at hand, the
Division Bench read down the rule/guideline which provided that the
ward of servicemen should have passed his/her 12th standard from
an institution located in the State of Maharashtra. The Division Bench
held that the servicemen or his ward desiring admission under the
State quota could not have had any control over his posting which
can be anywhere. The Division Bench held that the rule of denial
of admission to a meritorious son/daughter of a serviceman who is
domicile of Maharashtra only because of a fortuitous circumstance of
his being not posted at the time of his ward studying in 12th standard
within the State of Maharashtra cannot have any nexus to the object
of the rule. Mere chance cannot be a valid disqualifying factor.
Such rule will not only be arbitrary and unreasonable but will permit
discrimination between two classes of servicemen of Maharashtra
domicile actually posted at the material time (i) in Maharashtra and
(ii) outside Maharashtra. This classification will be clearly invidious
having no nexus whatsoever to the object sought to be achieved.
21. In the extant admission process, a slight modification has been made
in the guidelines inasmuch as, now as per clause 4.8.1 of Information
Brochure, the children of employees of the Government of India or
its Undertaking have been made eligible for admission even though
they might have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent exam from
a recognised institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra.
However, while making such relaxation, a condition has been imposed
that the employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being
the parent of the candidate should have been transferred back to the
State of Maharashtra and also have reported for duty and must be
working as on the last date of the document verification at a place
located in Maharashtra. We feel that this condition as imposed by the
guidelines, creates a stipulation which would be impossible for the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 715
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
candidate or his parent to fulfill. It may be reiterated that the place
of posting is not within the control of the employee or the candidate.
Thus, the distinction drawn by the clause between two categories
of employees in the Government of India services (i) those posted
in Maharashtra and (ii) those posted outside Maharashtra has no
nexus with the intent and purpose of the guidelines/rules and hence
the same deserves to be read down to such extent. Thus, this Court
has no hesitation in providing that the candidate(s) who are born in
Maharashtra and whose parents are also domicile of the State of
Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its
Undertaking, such candidate(s) would be entitled to a seat under
the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of
the parent(s) because the place of deployment would not be under
the control of the candidate or his parents.
22. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Nagpur while rejecting
the writ petition filed by the appellant, fell into manifest error in not
considering case of the appellant in the correct perspective. For that
reason, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in facts as well as
in law. A fortiori, the letter/communication dated 9th August, 2023
issued by respondent No. 6 cancelling the admission granted to
the appellant against the Maharashtra State quota in CAP1 without
giving opportunity to show cause is also illegal and arbitrary and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
23. However, there is a practical hurdle which comes in the way of the
appellant for being provided admission in the MBBS course in the
current session which has progressed significantly from August, 2023.
More than six months have passed by since the session started.
As per the reply of the respondents, no seat is lying vacant in any
college in Maharashtra State quota as on date.
24. Undisputably, the appellant has been illegally deprived from his
rightful admission in the first year of the MBBS course owing to the
insensitive, unjust, illegal and arbitrary approach of the respondents
and so also on account of the delay occasioned in the judicial process.
25. This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and
Others3 considered the concept of restitutive relief. Hon’ble P.S.
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 163
716 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Narasimha, J. speaking for the Bench, observed that concomitant
duty of the Constitutional Court is to take reasonable measures to
restitute the injured which is the overarching Constitutional purpose.
The relevant paras from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:-
"19. We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of
constitutional courts remains the control of power, including
setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or
arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may
not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power.
It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary
measure, to address the injurious consequences arising
from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty
to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our
overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have
read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built
our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective
to secure justice.
20. In public law proceedings, when it is realised that the
prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage
of time, constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ
proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility. In the
life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally
and adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints of
time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court
to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary
action. By taking the first step, the primary purpose and
object of public law proceedings will be subserved.
21. The second step relates to restitution. This operates
in a different dimension. Identification and application
of appropriate remedial measures poses a significant
challenge to constitutional courts, largely attributable to
the dual variables of time and limited resources.
22. The temporal gap between the impugned illegal or arbitrary
action and their subsequent adjudication by the courts
introduces complexities in the provision of restitution.
As time elapses, the status of persons, possession, and
promises undergoes transformation, directly influencing
the nature of relief that may be formulated and granted.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 717
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
23. The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between
the illegal impugned action and restitution is certainly not
rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence
but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial
judicial process. The protracted timeline spanning from
the filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of
counter affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual
delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent appellate
procedures, exacerbates delays. Take for example this
very case, the writ petition was filed against the action of
the respondent denying appointment on 22.05.2017. The
writ petition came to be decided by the Single Judge on
24.01.2018, the Division Bench on 16.10.2018, and then
the case was carried to this Court in the year 2019 and
we are deciding it in 2024. The delay in this case is
not unusual, we see several such cases when our final
hearing board moves. Appeals of more than two decades
are awaiting consideration. It is distressing but certainly
not beyond us. We must and we will find a solution to
this problem.”
26. Seen in the light of the above judgment, it is now to be considered
as to the measures of restitutive relief which can be provided to the
appellant in the present case.
27. This Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others4 examined the issue of wrongful denial of
admission in a medical course, and propounded the theory of
‘restitutive justice’ by holding as below:-
"13. In light of the discussion/observations made
hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/ student who
has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally
or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her
and who has approached the Court in time and so
as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not
have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the
reference as under:
4 (2017) 4 SCC 516
718 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and
without any delay and that the question is
with respect to the admission in medical
course all the efforts shall be made by
the court concerned to dispose of the
proceedings by giving priority and at the
earliest.
13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the
court finds that there is no fault attributable
to the candidate and the candidate has
pursued his/her legal right expeditiously
without any delay and there is fault only
on the part of the authorities and/or there
is apparent breach of rules and regulations
as well as related principles in the process
of grant of admission which would violate
the right of equality and equal treatment to
the competing candidates and if the time
schedule prescribed – 30th September, is
over, to do the complete justice, the Court
under exceptional circumstances and in
rarest of rare cases direct the admission
in the same year by directing to increase
the seats, however, it should not be more
than one or two seats and such admissions
can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e.,
within one month from 30th September, i.e.,
cut off date and under no circumstances,
the Court shall order any Admission in the
same year beyond 30th October. However, it
is observed that such relief can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances and in
the rarest of rare cases. In case of such
an eventuality, the Court may also pass
an order cancelling the admission given
to a candidate who is at the bottom of
the merit list of the category who, if the
admission would have been given to a more
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 719
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
meritorious candidate who has been denied
admission illegally, would not have got the
admission, if the Court deems it fit and
proper, however, after giving an opportunity
of hearing to a student whose admission
is sought to be cancelled.
13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that
no relief of admission can be granted to
such a candidate in the very academic
year and wherever it finds that the action
of the authorities has been arbitrary and
in breach of the rules and regulations or
the prospectus affecting the rights of the
students and that a candidate is found to
be meritorious and such candidate/student
has approached the court at the earliest and
without any delay, the court can mould the
relief and direct the admission to be granted
to such a candidate in the next academic
year by issuing appropriate directions by
directing to increase in the number of seats
as may be considered appropriate in the
case and in case of such an eventuality and
if it is found that the management was at
fault and wrongly denied the admission to
the meritorious candidate, in that case, the
Court may direct to reduce the number of
seats in the management quota of that year,
meaning thereby the student/students who
was/were denied admission illegally to be
accommodated in the next academic year
out of the seats allotted in the management
quota.
13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an
additional remedy but not a substitute
for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in
an appropriate case the Court may award
the compensation to such a meritorious
candidate who for no fault of his/her has to
720 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
lose one full academic year and who could
not be granted any relief of admission in
the same academic year.
13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions
pertain to Admission in MBBS Course only
and we have not dealt with post graduate
medical course.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. In the light of the above judgment, it would neither be desirable nor
justifiable to grant admission to the appellant in the on-going session
of the MBBS(UG) course. However, considering the fact that the
order cancelling the admission of the appellant herein was issued
on 9th August, 2023 and the writ petition came to be filed before the
High Court promptly i.e. on 10th August, 2023, without any delay
whatsoever, the appellant is entitled to restoration of his seat in
the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next
session, i.e., NEET UG-2024.
29. We further direct that until a suitable rectification is made in the
guidelines/rules, candidate(s) domicile of the State of Maharashtra
having acquired SSC and/or HSC qualification from any recognized
institution: -
(i) Whose parent(s) are domiciles of Maharashtra and employed
in the Central Government or its Undertaking, defence services
and/or in paramilitary forces viz. CRPF, BSF, etc. and;
(ii) Such parent(s) are posted at any place in the country as on the
last date of document verification, shall be entitled for a seat
in MBBS Course in the Maharashtra State quota.
30. It is further directed that the appellant shall be provided admission in
the ‘OBC category domicile of State of Maharashtra child of person
serving the Government of India’ in the first year of the MBBS(UG)
course commencing from the year 2024 by creating an additional
seat so as to ensure that there is no reduction in the quota of seats
to the candidates who succeed in the NEET UG-2024.
31. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are accordingly
allowed.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 721
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education &
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
32. We also direct respondent No.6-College and respondent No.5-State
of Maharashtra to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh(Rs.
50,000/- each) to the appellant for the deprivation of one year and
harassment on the account of illegal and arbitrary cancellation of
his admission.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.
