Education/Educational Institutions:
Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 – r. 12(8)(a) – Allotment for admission in the last round of counselling (Mop up round)– r.12(8)(a) providing that vacant seats which arise due to candidates in mop-up round not taking admission or submitting resignation after taking admission, not to be included in college level counselling – Constitutional validity – Held: Object of insertion of r.12(8)(a) was to ensure that admission to medical institutions are made strictly in accordance to merit as the Government noticed that lesser meritorious candidates were getting better colleges/subjects – According to r. 12(8)(b), those students who do not join after being allotted a seat through mop-up round would automatically be declared ineligible for the next round of counselling – They would not be entitled for admission to any other medical/dental colleges – Measure taken by the Government of proscribing the managements from filling up those seats that fell vacant due to non-joining of the candidates in mop-up round is an excessive and unreasonable restriction – Right to admit students which is a part of the management’s right to occupation u/Art. 19(1)(g) stands defeated by r.12(8)(a) as it prevents them from filling up all the seats in medical courses – Moreover, seats being kept vacant results in huge financial loss to the management of the educational institutions apart from being a national waste of resources – It is detrimental to public interest – Thus, the policy of not permitting the managements from filling up all the seats does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by r.12(8)(a) – Classification of seats remaining vacant due tononjoining may be based on intelligible differentia but it does not have any rational connection with the object sought to be achieved by r.12(8)(a) – Applying the test of proportionality, the restriction imposed by the Rule is unreasonable – Thus, r.12 (8)(a) is violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g).
Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 627; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; State of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC
517 : [2006] 3 SCR 396; Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710; Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC
386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; District Central Cooperative Bank V. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another (2007) 4 SCC 669; Modern Dental College and
Research Centre & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. (1998) 8 SCC 227 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 632 – referred to
R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103 (Can.SC) – referred to
Proportionality and Principled Balancing by Aharon Barak, 4 Law & Ethics Human Rights, 1 – 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.