Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017 – Dentists Act, 1948 – Dental Council of India – Postgraduate Dental Course – Admission – The National Board of Examination conducted NEET MDS 2018 for admission in various Postgraduate Course in Dental Sciences – The result of the NEET MDS 2018 was published on 31.01.2018 – A merit list was prepared for the State of Chhattisgarh – Admissions in the Postgraduate Course in Dental Sciences were to be made through counselling by the State Government – The admission process was required to be completed on or before 31.05.2018 before 4:30 p.m. – As per the procedure, after the first round of counselling, there was second round of counselling and thereafter the mop up round of counselling – In the instant case, the dispute was with respect to three Dental Colleges – Directorate of Medical Education notified the vacant seats including the vacant seats in the said three colleges on 29.05.2018 to be filled up in mop up round of counselling on the basis of intimation provided by the private colleges including the said three colleges – In the mop up round of counselling, the original writ petitioners participated but could not secure admission on merits in the respective colleges/institutions, in which, subsequently they got admissions through backdoor – Nothing is on record that any other students were given any opportunity to apply for admissions in the respective institutions/colleges for admission on the seats remained vacant – It is not appreciable how the original writ petitioners came to know that at 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the seats have remained vacant in the institutions/colleges – The only inference can be that the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students got admissions illegally – Communication issued by the Directorate annulling/cancelling the admission of the original writ petitioners in the postgraduate course in the respective private institutions/colleges is restored.
Allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. The respective original writ petitioners were granted admissions by the private institutions/colleges in the postgraduate course illegally. Their admissions can be said to be backdoor. The admissions in the postgraduate course were required to be made only through counselling by the Directorate and the counselling was to be done with respect to number of seats intimated by the concerned institutions/colleges. The admissions in the concerned institutions/colleges were required to be given/granted as per the merit only. As per the procedure and regulations, if after the first counselling the seats remained vacant, there shall be second round of counselling and then mop up counselling to fill up the vacant seats intimated. Every time the institutions/colleges were required to intimate the Directorate the particulars about the vacant seats and those vacant seats were required to be filled in on merits by the Directorate through counselling. The last date and the time for granting admission was 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018. In the present case, in the mop up round of counselling, the original writ petitioners did participate but could not secure admission on merits in the respective colleges/institutions in which subsequently they got admissions through backdoor. If the original writ petitioners were so much meritorious, they would have got admissions in the respective colleges/institutions on merits through mop up round conducted by the Directorate. During the mop up round, they could not get admissions in the respective private institutions/colleges, that itself is suggestive that they were not having merit to get admissions in the institutions/colleges in which subsequently they got admissions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the private institutions and even the students that they were meritorious students and the merit is not given go bye cannot be accepted. [Para 8][982-E-H; 983-A-B]
2. In the present case, though required, the private institutions/colleges did not intimate to the Directorate/State Government with respect to seats remained vacant. Without any intimation to the Directorate/State Government, the private institutions/colleges unilaterally granted admission to the original writ petitioners on 31.05.2018 after 4:30 p.m., which was not permissible at all. No admission could have been given after 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018. It is required to be noted that nothing is on record that any other students were given any opportunity to apply for admissions in the respective institutions/colleges for admission on the seats remained vacant. It is not appreciable how the original writ petitioners came to know that at 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the seats have remained vacant in the institutions/colleges. The only inference can be that the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students got admissions illegally. Even if on the last date of admission, seats remained vacant was no ground by the institutions/colleges to grant admissions unilaterally and that too without intimating the vacant seats to the Directorate. [Paras 9 and 10][983-C-E; 985-H]
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.