Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – MBBS course – As per High Court’s order, application for admission to be made online – Appellants-candidates’s case was that although they obtained the demand drafts pertaining to fee for admission prior to the last date for application, but their online application could not be submitted due to some snag in the website of the Malabar Medical College – Name of appellants did not appear in the list of eligible candidates – Complaints by Appellants-candidates – Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) took cognizance of complaints on 22.9.2016 and noted the stand of the college that their names shall be included in the list of eligible candidates – Notice issued by college accepting the same with condition that candidates shall submit proof of unsuccessful attempts for registration and with demand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date – The college had earlier made attempts for admission in the management/NRI quota but seats could not be filled up –Admissions of all appellants in the college – Eight seats belonging to Management/NRI quota were surrendered to the Government – On 4.3.2017, ASC withheld the admissions of seventy eight candidates under Management quota and eight candidates under NRI quota made by college – ASC rejected the case of four of the candidates who were admitted in the college in Management quota on the ground that their names were outside the list published by the Medical college and with regard to six appellants who were admitted under NRI quota, their admission were disapproved as they were not included in any of the online application lists submitted by the Medical college – Writ petition – Interim order passed permitting appellants to appear in first year MBBS examination – Writ petition dismissed – On appeal, this court ordered interim order to operate and finally held: The present case is not a case where the appellants did not appear in the NEET examination or they were granted admission disregarding the merits of other candidates in NEET – No details of any candidate who secured higher rank or merit to the appellants and was not given admission in the College was brought on record – It may be true that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly permit the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made their unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being included in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the College having given such opportunity to others in addition to seven candidates who had complained to the ASC, such action of the College cannot be termed the mala fide or with oblique motive especially when similarly situated candidates were included in the list of eligible candidates – High Court had not given due consideration to the important condition which was put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come up with proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission – This safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought of admission in the College prior to last date of admission – It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demand drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of admission – In the facts of the case where admission was also notified by the University and the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on 3.6.2016 and further the appellants were also permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this distance of time, the appellants cannot be thrown out of the College on account of the shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the High Court – The order of the High Court and the ASC is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The order dated 22.09.2016 has to be treated as passed by the ASC in exercise of its statutory power. It is true that in the order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear direction that names of other candidates who have not even submitted complaints should be included or any fresh applications be invited but College taking guidance from the aforesaid order issued the notice extending the similar protection to all the candidates who come with their unsuccessful attempts for registration but with the rider that they should come up along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut off date. The requirement of demand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an important factor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought of making an application in the College to come up with their applications with any fresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016 clearly prohibited all the candidates who had not taken demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 which was the last date of admission. In the present case, College had filed details of demand drafts of the appellants and it was not disputed that they submitted their applications with demand drafts taken before the last date of application. The High Court took a view that since they have not made on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016, they were not entitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-line application was a condition which having not been fulfilled, their applications were disapproved by the ASC and the High Court has also come to the conclusion that their applications were made after 09.09.2016 and they were admitted in the College on 28.09.2016. There cannot be any dispute that as per procedure prescribed and the interim order of the High Court dated 26.08.2016 students were to submit admission applications to the respective Colleges on-line and the admissions were to be taken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination. [Para 21] [338-B-G]
2. The respondents could not point out any such details of any candidate who was included in the list published by the College and who had higher NEET rank to the appellants and has raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is also on the record that in fact after admission made in the Management quota and NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which were surrendered to the Government by the College. Details of names of eight candidates, invited for spot admission against the still vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted. After receiving the applications from appellants and after being satisfied that they had demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 and had made unsuccessful attempts for their registration the College published their names on 27.09.2016. The ASC which is entrusted to supervise and guide entire admission process having issued the order dated 22.09.2016 asking the College to include the names of 7 candidates whose names were not earlier included, the College extended the said benefit and the facility to other candidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts for registration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut off date of admission. [Paras 22, 23] [338-H; 339-A-E]
3. The High Court had not given due consideration to the important condition which was put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come up with proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission. The above safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought of admission in the College prior to last date of admission. [Para 26] [342-B-C]
5. It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demand drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of admission. In the facts of the present case where admission was also notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the appellants were also permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellants out of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the High Court. [Para 27] [342-C-E]
Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India and others (2017)
3 SCC 652 : [2017] 1 SCR 559 – distinguished.
Sankalp Charitable Trust and another v. Union of India and others (2016) 7 SCC 487; Christian Medical College, Vellore and others v. Union of India and others (2014) 2 SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.