Education/Educational Institution : NEET UG 2021 – After the completion of two rounds of counseling of NEET 2021, second respondent, University of Himachal Pradesh, issued a schedule for conducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDS courses – Appellant, a private state university in Himachal Pradesh, issued an advertisement for conducting the mop up round of counselling from NEET qualified candidates – Second respondent forwarded to the appellant a list of students who were eligible for admission under the state quota, but were admitted in the management quota in the first and second rounds of counseling along with the letter stating that these students may be considered for being shifted to the state quota if no students with more marks in NEET had applied in the mop up round – Writ petition was filed by the first respondent, a medical student, before the High Court for redrawing the merit list for admission to the MBBS degree in the mop up round of counseling for the general category under the state quota, which was allowed – On appeal, held: Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that in a schedule for the mop up round, eligible candidates would be entitled to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course, college and quota online – Shifting for up-gradation of a course and quota from private dental colleges to government dental colleges and viceversa in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed – Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging to Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota in private medical/dental colleges will also be converted automatically from the management quota to the state quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop out seats, if any, in order of merit – First respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, therefore, entitled to admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3 – However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 –By the time the High Court decided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over – The prescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellants is 150 students – The consequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the first respondent increases the intake of the college to 151 seats but the one student who would be the lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directed to the first respondent – As already 5 months of the first session for the MBBS course have been completed, hence, direction of the High Court to grant admission to the first respondent cannot be acceded – However, compensation granted to first respondent. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that after the completion of the first and second rounds of counselling, a schedule for the mop up round shall be issued by the university and the online counselling form would be made available. Candidates who are eligible for participating in the mop up round have to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course, college and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of a course and quota from private dental colleges to government dental colleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and government dental colleges/ MMMC Solan to government medical colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences has to be allowed. The provisions of clause 3 are abundantly clear. The first respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. She was therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging to Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota in private medical/dental colleges will also be converted automatically from the management quota to the state quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop out seats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court has correctly observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop out seats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains after the mop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, the interpretation which has been placed by the High Court on clauses
3 and 4 of the prospectus cannot be faulted. [Paras 17 and 18][1123-E-H; 1124-A-B]
2. In the instant proceedings, the High Court understandably held that the first respondent was wrongfully denied admission in the medical college run by the appellants. However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 for the academic session 2021-2022. Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of the first respondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted a writ petition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time the High Court decided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over. [Para 22][1126-F-G]
3. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were the three students who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of the prospectus were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The issue however does not rest only with these three students. The prescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellants is 150 students. The consequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the first respondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes. The total strength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for the academic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151 students and one of the three students among the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents would be reverted to the management quota, but the matter would not rest there. Once the intake of the college increases to 151 seats after the admission of the first respondent, one student who would be the lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directed to the first respondent. That student would not have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the High Court. Compounded with the above position is the fact that five months of the first session for the MBBS degree course for the academic year 20212022 have been completed and the admitted students are pursuing their studies. In this view of the matter, it may not be possible for this Court to accede to the direction of the High Court for the grant of admission to the first respondent. The alternative submission which has been urged cannot also be acceded to because it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct that admission be granted to the first respondent against the seats available for the ensuing academic year 2022-2023. Those seats should be filled on a competitive basis in accordance with the governing prospectus. [Para 23][1127-A-E]
4. The first respondent cannot be left without any remedy. She has suffered though she ranked higher than the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-UG 2021. She has been deprived of the admission to which she was entitled under clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation. Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDS course in a government dental college, she aspires to a seat for the MBBS degree course. The loss of one full academic year of the MBBS degree course can only be partially compensated in terms of money. However, compensation must be provided to the first respondent and she cannot be left in the lurch having lost a seat for admission for the MBBS degree course. [Para 24][1127-F-H]
Asha v. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 : [2012] 6 SCR 876; S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465 : [2019] 15 SCR 93 and National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi 2020 SCC OnLine SC
992 – relied on.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942; Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (2005) 13 SCC 704 and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 : [2012] 5 SCR 768 – 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.