G H ANITTA JOB & ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. on 20 April 2018

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 326

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

A

ANITTA JOB & ORS.

v.

THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2018)

B

APRIL 20, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – MBBScourse – As per High Court’s order, application for admission to bemade online – Appellants-candidates’s case was that although theyCobtained the demand drafts pertaining to fee for admission prior tothe last date for application, but their online application could notbe submitted due to some snag in the website of the Malabar MedicalCollege – Name of appellants did not appear in the list of eligiblecandidates – Complaints by Appellants-candidates – AdmissionDSupervisory Committee (ASC) took cognizance of complaints on22.9.2016 and noted the stand of the college that their names shallbe included in the list of eligible candidates – Notice issued bycollege accepting the same with condition that candidates shallsubmit proof of unsuccessful attempts for registration and withdemand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date – The collegeEhad earlier made attempts for admission in the management/NRIquota but seats could not be filled up –Admissions of all appellantsin the college – Eight seats belonging to Management/NRI quotawere surrendered to the Government – On 4.3.2017, ASC withheldthe admissions of seventy eight candidates under Management quotaFand eight candidates under NRI quota made by college – ASCrejected the case of four of the candidates who were admitted in thecollege in Management quota on the ground that their names wereoutside the list published by the Medical college and with regard tosix appellants who were admitted under NRI quota, their admissionwere disapproved as they were not included in any of the onlineGapplication lists submitted by the Medical college – Writ petition –Interim order passed permitting appellants to appear in first yearMBBS examination – Writ petition dismissed – On appeal, this courtordered interim order to operate and finally held: The present caseis not a case where the appellants did not appear in the NEETH

Conclusion

examination or they were granted admission disregarding the meritsof other candidates in NEET – No details of any candidate whosecured higher rank or merit to the appellants and was not givenadmission in the College was brought on record – It may be truethat the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly permitthe College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made theirunsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for beingincluded in the list of eligible candidates of the College but theCollege having given such opportunity to others in addition to sevencandidates who had complained to the ASC, such action of theCollege cannot be termed the mala fide or with oblique motiveespecially when similarly situated candidates were included in thelist of eligible candidates – High Court had not given dueconsideration to the important condition which was put by theCollege in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come,claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registrationand come up with proof to show that they had prepared demanddraft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission –This safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thoughtof admission in the College prior to last date of admission – It is notdisputed that the appellants had proof of demand drafts in the nameof College which were prior to the last date of admission – In thefacts of the case where admission was also notified by the Universityand the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on3.6.2016 and further the appellants were also permitted to appearin the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at thisdistance of time, the appellants cannot be thrown out of the Collegeon account of the shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and theHigh 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 aspassed by the ASC in exercise of its statutory power. It is truethat in the order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear directionthat names of other candidates who have not even submittedcomplaints should be included or any fresh applications be invitedbut College taking guidance from the aforesaid order issued thenotice extending the similar protection to all the candidates whocome with their unsuccessful attempts for registration but with ABCDEF

GH

Athe rider that they should come up along with demand drafts takenbefore the scheduled cut off date. The requirement of demanddraft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an importantfactor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought ofmaking an application in the College to come up with theirapplications with any fresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016Bclearly prohibited all the candidates who had not taken demanddraft prior to 09.09.2016 which was the last date of admission. Inthe present case, College had filed details of demand drafts ofthe appellants and it was not disputed that they submitted theirapplications with demand drafts taken before the last date ofCapplication. The High Court took a view that since they have notmade on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016, they were notentitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-lineapplication was a condition which having not been fulfilled, theirapplications were disapproved by the ASC and the High Courthas also come to the conclusion that their applications were madeDafter 09.09.2016 and they were admitted in the College on28.09.2016. There cannot be any dispute that as per procedureprescribed and the interim order of the High Court dated26.08.2016 students were to submit admission applications tothe respective Colleges on-line and the admissions were to beEtaken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination. [Para 21][338-B-G]

2. The respondents could not point out any such details ofany candidate who was included in the list published by theCollege and who had higher NEET rank to the appellants and

Fhas raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is also on therecord that in fact after admission made in the Management quotaand NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which weresurrendered to the Government by the College. Details of namesof eight candidates, invited for spot admission against the still vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted. AfterGreceiving the applications from appellants and after being satisfiedthat they had demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 and had madeunsuccessful attempts for their registration the College publishedtheir names on 27.09.2016. The ASC which is entrusted tosupervise and guide entire admission process having issued theHorder dated 22.09.2016 asking the College to include the names of 7 candidates whose names were not earlier included, theCollege extended the said benefit and the facility to othercandidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts forregistration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduledcut off date of admission. [Paras 22, 23] [338-H; 339-A-E]

3. The High Court had not given due consideration to theimportant condition which was put by the College in the noticedated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that theymade unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come upwith proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of feewhich was of prior date to the last date of admission. The abovesafeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought ofadmission in the College prior to last date of admission. [Para26] [342-B-C]

5. It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demanddrafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date ofadmission. In the facts of the present case where admission wasalso notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for thefirst time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 andfurther the appellants were also permitted to appear in theexamination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at thisdistance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellants outof the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointedby 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 Indiaand others (2016) 7 SCC 487; Christian MedicalCollege, Vellore and others v. Union of India and others(2014) 2 SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 – referred to Case Law Reference A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3874of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (Civil) No.24133/2017.

Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Zulfiker Ali P.S., Faisal M. Aboobaker,BMs. Lakshmi Sree Puthenpurackal, Advs. for the Appellants.

Pallav Shishodia, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., C.K. Sasi,Ms. Nayantara Roy, Manukrishnan, G., Venkita Subramoniam T.R.,P. Sreekumar, Santosh Krishnan, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Rajiv RanjanDwivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.C

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. The appellants, ten in numbers, havefiled this appeal against the Division Bench Judgment of the High Courtof Kerala dated 04.01.2018 by which their writ petition challenging theDorder of Admission Supervisory Committee dated 03.06.2017 has beendismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case which need to be noted for decidingthis appeal are:

The Malabar Medical College and Research Centre hasEsanctioned intake capacity of 150 students in MBBS Course. With effectfrom 2016-2017 admission in MBBS Course was to be conducted onthe basis of NEET examination. This Court vide its order dated06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust and another vs. Union ofIndia and others, (2016) 7 SCC 487, has directed that no examinationshall be permitted to be held for admission to MBBS or BDS studies byFany private college or association or any private/deemed university. Alladmissions in the MBBS Course were to be done on the basis of NationalEligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). All the appellants appeared inthe NEET examination and declared qualified with their respective ranks.The State of Kerala has issued various Government orders pertaining toGadmission procedure in Government/Management/NRI seats in theprivate/self-financing Colleges. As per the orders issued by theGovernment of Kerala, the Commissioner of Entrance Examination shallmake allotment for MBBS in the Government Management/NRI seatsin all private/self-financing Colleges.

H

3. The Writ petitions were filed by different Medical Collegeschallenging the Government Orders. The Kerala High Court in a bunchof writ petitions, leading writ petition being No.28041 of 2016 on26.08.2016 stayed the orders issued by the State of Kerala with certaindirections pertaining to admission in MBBS/BDS Courses. The MalabarMedical College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) submitted aprospectus to the Admission Supervisory Committee (hereafter referredto as the ‘ASC’) and got it approved on 06.09.2016. As per the orderpassed by the Kerala High Court dated 26.08.2016 and as per procedurelaid down by the ASC, the applications for admissions were to be madeon-line. Last date for submitting application on-line for admission was09.09.2016. The respective Colleges were also directed to publish thelist of applications received on-line so as to enable the ASC to superviseand guide the entire admission process.

4. The appellants’ case is that although they obtained the demanddrafts from banks pertaining to the fee for admission prior to 09.09.2016,but their on-line applications could not be submitted due to some snag inthe website of the College. On 13.09.2016 College published a list of1335 candidates in which the names of the appellants were not there.Certain other candidates whose names were not included in the list filedcomplaints before the ASC. The ASC taking cognizance of the complaintsissued an order on 22.09.2016 noticing the stand of the College that theirnames shall be included in the list of eligible candidates. After receivingthe aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016 a notice was also issued by theCollege on their website on 23.09.2016.

5. The notice dated 23.09.2016 represented to the students thatapplications from all those with proof of (i) their unsuccessful attemptsfor registration and (ii) with demand draft taken before the scheduledcut off date, shall be accepted by the College. The appellants in pursuanceof the notice 23.09.2016 by the College submitted their applications alongwith proof that the demand drafts were taken before the scheduled cutoff date. Supplementary list of 33 eligible students was published by theCollege on 27.09.2016 in which names of all the appellants were included.The College had earlier made two attempts for admission in theManagement quota/NRI quota but seats could not be filled up.

6. On 28.09.2016, the appellants were admitted by the Collegeand on 30.09.2016, the list of 142 students including the names of the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappellants were registered with the Kerala University of Health Sciences.Eight seats belonging to Management/NRI quota which remained unfilledwere surrendered to the Government and on the basis of order dated05.10.2016, 8 candidates were forwarded to the College by theCommissioner of Entrance Examination which were also admitted bythe College. After their admissions, the appellants started attending theirBclasses, the details of admissions taken by the College of Management/NRI quota was forwarded to ASC. The ASC by order dated 04.03.2017withheld the admissions of 78 candidates under Management quota and8 candidates under NRI quota made by the College. On 05.10.2016, theManagement had already forwarded the details of all the admissionsCincluding the admissions of the appellants to the ASC. The ASC by orderdated 03.06.2017 rejected the case of four of the candidates who hadadmitted in the College in the Management quota on the ground thattheir names are outside the list published by the Medical College andwith regard to six appellants who are admitted under NRI quota, theiradmissions were disapproved as they have not included in any of the on-Dline application lists submitted by the Medical College.

7. Then aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2017, appellants filedWrit Petition (C) No.24133 of 2017 in which an interim order was passedon 27.07.2017 permitting the appellants to appear in the First Year MBBSExamination. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the DivisionEBench of Kerala High Court vide its judgment dated 04.01.2018 againstwhich this appeal has been filed.

8. This Court while entertaining the appeal on 16.02.2018 directedthat in the meantime, interim order that was passed during the pendencyof the writ proceedings before the High Court shall operate.

F

9. We have heard Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counselfor the appellants and Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counselappearing for the Admission Supervisory Committee. We have also heardlearned counsel for the State of Kerala, the Kerala University of HealthSciences as well as Principal of Malabar Medical College.

G

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellantswere admitted by the College in accordance with procedure prescribedand directions issued by the ASC. It is submitted that although theappellants were unsuccessful in making on-line application before thecut off date, i.e., 09.09.2016 but when the notice was published on H

23.09.2016 permitting all applicants who could not successfully submiton-line applications along with demand draft prior to cut off date, theysubmitted their applications in pursuance of the notice and were grantedadmission on 28.09.2016. He submits that cut off date fixed by theMedical Council of India and as approved by this Court is 30.09.2016and admissions of the appellants having been taken prior to cut off date,there was no illegality. He further submits that admissions of the appellantswere made according to their ranks in NEET and no complaint had beenmade by any candidate or any other person against the admissions ofthe appellants. No candidate having any higher rank in the NEET hascome up before ASC or before any Court alleging that he applied foradmission in the College and had higher rank to the appellants. Theadmission of the appellants being on the basis of NEET merits ought notto have been interfered by the ASC.

11. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for therespondent-ASC submits that only method for making application foradmission to a College was on-line, the date published for submitting on-line applications was 09.09.2016 and admittedly the appellants had notsubmitted their applications prior to 09.09.2016 and their names werealso not included in the list which was published by the College of theeligible candidates, they were clearly not entitled for admission and ASChad rightly disapproved their admissions. It is further submitted that orderdated 22.09.2016 issued by the ASC could not have been availed by theCollege to permit the College to entertain applications of others apartfrom the candidates who had made complaints regarding their on-lineapplications. The College could not have entertained the appellants’applications.

12. Learned counsel for the University as well as learned counselfor the State of Kerala have also adopted the arguments made by ShriJaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the ASC. Learned counsel forthe Principal supported the case of the appellants and submitted thatadmissions of the appellants were properly made on the basis of theirNEET ranking.

13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and perused the records.

14. We have already noticed above that Kerala High Court haspassed interim order on 26.08.2016 under which the High Court issued A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acertain directions regarding admission in MBBS/BDS Courses 2016-2017. Paragraph 9 of the judgment which is relevant in this context is asfollows:

“9. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay of operationand implementation of the impugned orders, G.O.(Rt) No.B2314/2016/H&FWD dated 20.08.2016 and G.O.(Rt) No. 2336/2016/ H&FWD dated 23.08.2016, subject to the followingconditions:-

(i) Admissions to the MBBS/BDS courses shall be only on thebasis of the ranking of candidates in the rank list of NEET,C2016, on the basis of the inter-se merit among thecandidates, who have applied to the respective colleges.

(ii) All the colleges agree that, the applications for admissionare received only through on-line and that, the saidprocess provides transparency with regard to the meritDas well as the identities of the applicants. Suchapplications shall therefore be uploaded for the scrutinyof the Admission Supervisory Committee also immediatelyon the expiry of the last date for submission ofapplications.

E(iii) Since the counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committeehas voiced a complaint that some of the colleges havenot obtained approval of the Admission SupervisoryCommittee, for their Prospectus, the admission processshall be proceeded with only on the basis of a Prospectus,for which approval of the Admission SupervisoryFCommittee has been obtained.

(iv) The Admission Supervisory committee is directed to eitherapprove or disapprove the Prospectus, submitted to themfor approval, within three days of such submission.”

15. It is relevant that against the interim order of the Kerala HighGCourt dated 26.08.2016, Union of India has filed an SLP which wasdisposed of by this Court on 28.09.2016 in C.A.No.9862 of 2016. ThisCourt set aside only that part of Condition No.1 wherein the respectiveColleges are allowed to conduct the counseling and admit the students H

without going into the merits. This Court, however, specifically observedthat this Court is not interfering with the admissions of students whichhave been done by the respective Colleges as those were done afterreaching arrangement with the State Government. Last two paragraphsof this Court’s order dated 28.09.2016 are as follows:

“Having regard to the aforesaid facts as stated by thelearned Solicitor General as well as the counsel for therespondents, we set aside that part of Condition No.1 whereinthe respective colleges are allowed to conduct the counselingand admit the students without going into the merits.

This issue shall be finally thrashed out and decided bythe High Court in the writ petitions which are pending beforeit. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the admissionsof students which have been done by the respective collegesas these are done after reaching arrangement with the StateGovernment. In that behalf, the conditions which arementioned in the impugned order shall continue to apply.

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

16. The admission of the appellants admittedly was completed on28.09.2016 as per the interim order of Kerala High Court dated28.09.2016. We thus have to consider the admissions as per the directionsof the Kerala High Court and the directives of the ASC as applicable onthe relevant date.

17. There cannot be any dispute with the procedure which wasprescribed for admissions in MBBS Course, students were to makeapplications on-line and last date for making such applications was09.09.2016. There is also no dispute that appellants could not succeed inmaking any on-line application prior to 09.09.2016 although they claim tohave prepared a demand draft before the last date of admission.

18. In the admission list which was published on 13.09.2016 bythe College of all eligible candidates the names of appellants were notincluded. It has come on the record that appellants made applications tothe College only after publication of notice by the College on 23.09.2016in pursuance of order dated 22.09.2016 issued by the ASC. The ASChas issued order dated 22.09.2016 on complaints received by 7 candidatesalleging that their names were not included in the published list of eligible A

BCD

EF

G

H

Acandidates of Medical College. The ASC issued the following order dated22.09.2016:

“ORDER

Complaints have been received from seven complainantsalleging that their names are not included in the PublishedBeligible lists of Malabar Medical College, in short the MedicalCollege.

2. When the matter was taken up, Advocate Devaprasad, waspresent and representing the Medical College. The details ofabove seven complainants were handed over to him. HeCsubmitted, after contacting the Medical College, that onreceiving the details of these seven students, the MedicalCollege would list them also along with the already publishedeligible list of the applicants.

3. Alan Philips did not give any application details or otherDparticulars. Hence, he had been directed to furnish all thedetails to the Medical College, so that his name will also beconsidered by the College.

4. The Medical College is directed to publish Managementand NRI quota lists separately with NEET rank so as to enableEthe applicants to know their rank and position. The rejectedlist, if any, should also be published.

5. The Medical College shall adhere to the Directives issuedby the ASC, particularly the Directives dated 19.09.2016.

6. Email this order to the Principal of the Malabar MedicalFCollege, and add to the website of the ASC for the informationof all the complainants, as no separate communication isaddressed to them from the ASC office.

Dated on this the 22[nd] day of September 2016.

Sd/-

G

CHAIRMAN”

19. After the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016, the College hasissued notice in its website on 23.09.2016, last paragraph of the notice isas follows:

H

“As directed by the (illegible) Admission SupervisoryEngineer, we undertake to accept all such applicationsreceived in the college office with the (illegible) of theirunsuccessful attempts for registration alongwith DD takenbefore the scheduled cut off date. These applications will be(illegible) to vacant seats.”

20. The ASC has been constituted in the State of Kerala inpursuance of a State enactment, namely, the Kerala Professional Collegesor Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission,Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equityand Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006. Under the Act,ASC is to supervise and guide the entire process of admission of studentsto unaided professional colleges or institutions. Sub-sections (6) and (7)of Section 4 are as follows:

“Section 4. Admission Supervisory Committee.-

(1) xxx xxxxxx

(6) The Admission Supervisory Committee shall supervise andguide the entire process of admission of students to theunaided professional colleges or institutions with a view toensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based andnon-exploitative under the provisions of this Act.

(7) The Admission Supervisory Committee may hearcomplaints with regard to admission in contravention of theprovisions contained herein. If the Admission SupervisoryCommittee after enquiry finds that there has been any violationof the provisions for admission on the part of the unaidedprofessional colleges or institutions, it shall make appropriaterecommendation to the Government for imposing a fine uptorupees ten lakhs and the Government may on receipt of suchrecommendation, fix the fine and collect the same in the caseof each such violation or any other course of action as itdeems fit and the amount so fixed together with interest thereonshall be recovered as if it were an arrear of public revenuedue on land. The Admission Supervisory Committee may alsodeclare admission made in respect of any or all seats in aparticular college or institution to be de-hors merit andtherefore invalid and communicate the same to the concerned A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AUniversity. On the receipt of such communication, theUniversity shall debar such candidates from appearing forany further examination and cancel the results of examinationsalready appeared for.”

21. The order dated 22.09.2016 has to be treated as passed byBthe ASC in exercise of the abovesaid statutory power. It is true that inthe order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear direction that names ofother candidates who have not even submitted complaints should beincluded or any fresh applications be invited but College taking guidancefrom the aforesaid order issued the notice extending the similar protectionto all the candidates who come with their unsuccessful attempts forCregistration but with the rider that they should come up along with demanddrafts taken before the scheduled cut off date. The requirement ofdemand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an importantfactor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought of makingan application in the College to come up with their applications with anyDfresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016 clearly prohibited all thecandidates who had not taken demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 whichwas the last date of admission. In the present case College had fileddetails of demand drafts of the appellants and it was not disputed thatthey submitted their applications with demand drafts taken before thelast date of application. The High Court has taken a view that since theyEhave not made on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016 they were notentitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-line applicationwas a condition which having not been fulfilled, their applications weredisapproved by the ASC and the High Court has also come to theconclusion that their applications were made after 09.09.2016 and they Fwere admitted in the College on 28.09.2016. There cannot be any disputethat as per procedure prescribed and the interim order of the KeralaHigh Court dated 26.08.2016 students were to submit admissionapplications to the respective Colleges on-line and the admissions wereto be taken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination.

G22. During the course of hearing we had repeatedly asked learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents as to whether any candidate havingmerit higher to the appellants in the NEET examination, has submittedany complaint or made any protest to any authority complaining that hehad made application to the College having secured higher rank to theappellants and has been denied the admission. The respondents couldH

not point out any such details of any candidate who was included in thelist published by the College and who had higher NEET rank to theappellants and has raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is alsoon the record that in fact after admission made in the Managementquota and NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which weresurrendered to the Government by the College.

23. Details of names of eight candidates, invited for spot admissionagainst the still vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted on07.10.2016 (within the date as extended). The details of 8 candidateswho were admitted on the basis of the allotment made by the Governmentis found at Annexure P-7 and on perusal of the names along with theirNEET rank, the inter se ranks of the candidates which were admittedsubsequent to the appellants clearly indicate that four candidates arelower in the NEET rank to the appellants. After receiving the applicationsfrom appellants and after being satisfied that they had demand draftprior to 09.09.2016 and had made unsuccessful attempts for theirregistration the College published their names on 27.09.2016 which listis also on the record. The ASC which is entrusted to supervise and guideentire admission process having issued the order dated 22.09.2016 askingthe College to include the names of 7 candidates whose names were notearlier included, the College extended the said benefit and the facility toother candidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts forregistration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut offdate of admission. We are unable to see any mala fide or any obliquemotive in publishing notice dated 23.09.2016 by the College. Theyreceived order for inclusion of 7 such candidates whose names wereincluded in the list and extended the same benefits to other similarlysituated.

24. The High Court has referred to the judgment of this Court inRishabh Choudhary vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC652. The High Court has relied on paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgmentwhich are to the following effect:

“15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamedfor the present state of affairs—whether it is the students orthe College or the State of Chhattisgarh. The question is reallywhether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our opinion,the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The College A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

and the State of Chhattisgarh have not adhered to the lawwith the result that the petitioner became a victim ofcircumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed againstthe College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim oftheir maladministration. The plight of the petitioner isunfortunate but it cannot be helped.

B

16. We were told during the course of submissions that somesimilarly placed students participated in NEET and qualifiedin the examination. Those students like the petitioner who didnot participate in NEET and placed their trust only in theCollege and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and thatCgamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our sympathiesmay be with the petitioner and similarly placed students, wecannot go contrary to the orders passed by this Court fromtime to time, only for their benefit.”

25. The case of Rishabh Choudhary (supra) was a case ofDcandidate who was admitted by the College in the year 2016-2017 inMBBS Course on the basis of examination conducted by the College.This Court noticed in the aforesaid judgment that this Court having alreadypassed an order dated 11.04.2016 recalling the judgment of this Courtdated 18.07.2013 in Christian Medical College, Vellore and othersEvs. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 305, the notificationissued by the Medical Council of India on 21.12.2010 reviewed that theexamination was to be conducted by NEET. This Court in RishabhChoudhary case (supra) has also noticed the order of this Court dated06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra) where this Court hasdirected that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admissionFto MBBS or BDS studies by any private college. In paragraphs 9 to 12following was held:

“9. By an order dated 6-5-2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust,it was made clear that no examination shall be permitted tobe held for admission for MBBS studies by any private collegeGor association or any private/deemed university.

10. Subsequently on 9-5-2016 this Court declined to modifythe order dated 28-4-2016. An order was also passed makingit clear that all such candidates who could not appear inNEET I and those who had appeared but had an apprehension H

that they had not prepared well, would be permitted to appearin NEET II subject to an option from these candidates to giveup their candidature for NEET I. It was further clarified thatonly NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBSstudies.”

11. In view of all these orders passed by this Court from timeto time, it is more than abundantly clear that the Notificationdated 21-12-2010 stood resurrected and that admissions tothe MBBS course could only be through NEET I and NEET II.No other process of admission was permissible. Given thisbackground, the Director of Medical Education inChhattisgarh wrote to the College on or about 13-7-2016 totake steps to cancel all the admissions made by the College interms of the examination CGMAT-2016 held for students forthe management quota and NRI quota. Eventually by a Letterdated 28-7-2016 the Director of Medical Education inChhattisgarh recommended to the College to canceladmissions made to the MBBS course. This prompted thepetitioner to file a writ petition in this Court.

12. It is submitted and prayed by the petitioner that since hehad already been granted admission by the College after theexamination CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College andsupervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh andin which there were no allegations of impropriety, hisadmission should not be disturbed. It is submitted that thepetitioner was certainly not at fault and there is no reasonwhy he should be the victim of an apparent wrong committedby the College as also by the State of Chhattisgarh.”

26. The observations were made in paragraphs 15 and 16 in thebackground of facts in that case. Present is not a case where theappellants did not appear in the NEET examination or they were grantedadmission disregarding the merits of other candidates in NEET. No detailsof any candidate who secured higher rank or merit to the appellants andwas not given admission in the College has been brought to our notice. Itmay be true that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expresslypermit the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made theirunsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aincluded in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the Collegehaving given such opportunity to others in addition to 7 candidates whohad complained to the ASC, such action of the College cannot be termedthe mala fide or with oblique motive especially when similarly situatedcandidates were included in the list of eligible candidates. The HighCourt had not given due consideration to the important condition whichBwas put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidateswho come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-lineregistration and come up with proof to show that they had prepareddemand 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 thoughtCof admission in the College prior to last date of admission.

27. It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demanddrafts 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 bythe University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the first time disapprovedDtheir admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the appellants were alsopermitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the HighCourt, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellantsout of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed bythe ASC and the High Court.

28. In the result, we set aside the order of the High Court as wellas the order of the Admission Supervisory Committee. The appeal isallowed.

E

F

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

G

H