Writ petition challenging cancellation of MD Pediatrics admission due to non-submission of documents by petitioner was dismissed, holding it would amount to interfering with medical admission process and petitioner cannot avail own wrong.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJP/006936]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2023
Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Om Prakash Saini, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Ashok Nagar, Station Road, Bagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
18/04/2023
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioners and after perusing the same may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition:-
(2 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
provisional revised State Merit List dated 25.11.2022 (Annex.2) and the provisional State Merit List dated 14.01.2023(Annex.3) may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue with his studies at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur for M.D. (Pediatrics).
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
(3 of 11)
entire fee is is arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind as the merit of the petitioner cannot be compromised. Counsel further submits that no third party rights will be affected as admittedly one seat in MD Pediatrics course is still lying vacant in the concerned college. Counsel further submits that once the petitioner has joined the said course the respondents are estopped to cancel his admission on the pretext of some mistake committed by the clerk.
Asha Vs. Pt.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences &
Ors. reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389, wherein paras No.5A, 30 &
36, it has been held as under:-
“5. The questions are :-
a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the Rule of Merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admission to such courses?
(4 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
before us have argued with some vehemence that it will amount to a midterm admission which is impermissible, will result in indiscipline and will cause prejudice to other candidates. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Others [(2002) 7 SCC 258], Ms. Neelu Arora and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2003) 3 SCC 366], Aman Deep Jaswal v. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 9 SCC 597], Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and Others [(2005) 12 SCC 626], Mridul Dhar and Another v Union of India and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 65], Medical Council of India v Madhu Singh and Others [(2002) 7 SCC 258].
a) The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and concerned authorities are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur.
b) 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding of second counseling by 15th September of the relevant academic year [in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta (supra)]. Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) and this
(5 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.
c) & d) Wherever the court finds that action of the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and violative of the Rules, regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the Court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials. The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment.
Where the admissions given by the concerned authorities are found by the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact that such students have put in a year or so into the academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the course.”
“8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. 1980 (2) SCC 752. The controversy here related to admission to a post graduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or sub-specialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate’s success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The Prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and
(6 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with their applications. Their admission to post graduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications, wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma, were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below : "20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course ? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor.
……………………Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is
(7 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.
(8 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
of admission, as per the guidelines mentioned in the admission booklet as well as in the provisional allotment letter. Counsel further submits that the petitioner himself has admitted his mistake in the letter written to the Principal and Controller of Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur on 28.12.2022 which reads as under:-
“उपरो्ሹ ववय़षययትनኋቌतरቱᮔኋቌ ै वय़ቝኦदैኃ ख़ व PG State counseling round -II में आपवኧቝኦ म ख़यት ववय़दयትलय में मሰॡुझ ቝኦ paediatrics (MD) आ ख़ररኋቌ ख़ሰॡई थी। वदैኃयትंवኧ 31 .10 .2022 वኧो ररपो व्िሡतर वኧरैኃቝኦ ख़ቝኦኋቌሰॡ आपवኧቝኦ म ख़यትववय़दयትलय में उपपसउथኋቌ ख़ोवኧर ररपो व्िሡतर एपलीवኧቝኦशैኃ , चेቝኦवኧ ैलउ् , एवय़ं फफीस रर ैसप् (फफीस चेयትलयትैኃ) पयት् वኧर QR code वኧቝኦ मयትधयम सቝኦ ऑैኃलयትइैኃ फफीस जमयት वኧरवय़यትई। उ्ሹ समउኋቌ दउኋቌयትवय़ቝኦज लवय़श पሰॡैኃቒቤ मख़ነ आपैኃቝኦ वኧयትययትቱᮔलय मख़ነ जमयት ैኃ ख़ीं वኧरवय़यት सवኧयት एवय़ं लवय़श उ्ሹ 3 दउኋቌयትवय़ቝኦज अपैኃቝኦ सयትथ लቝኦ तरययት उसवኧቝኦ बयትद वदैኃयትंवኧ 5 .12 .2022 वኧो मख़ነ पीएचेसी डयትडयት फኋቌቝኦ ख़पሰॡरयት खंड खቝኦኋቌड़ी ुझ ሰॡैኃኩ सቝኦ वኧयትयቱᮔमሰॡ्ሹ ख़ोवኧर वदैኃयትंवኧ 06 .12 .2022 वኧो मख़ነैኃቝኦHoD paediatrics वኧो अपैኃी उपपसउथ ैኋቌ दरቱᮔ व थी। वኧयትययትቱᮔलय मख़ነ संपवኧቱᮔ वኧरैኃቝኦ पर अवय़तरኋቌ वኧरवय़यትययት तरययት मቝኦरी Reporting वदैኃयትंवኧ 31 .10 .2022 वኧो fees receipt , reporting application, check list जमयት ैኃ ख़ीं वኧरवय़यትैኃቝኦ वኧቝኦ वኧयትरैኃ online reporting ैኃ ख़ीं ख़ो पयትई। इस वय़्ሹ मख़ነैኃቝኦ डड३कयኩमें् वኧቝኦ आलयትवय़यት शቝኦष आवय़श्यवኧ डड३कयኩमें् व वኧड३पी मख़ነैኃቝኦ आपवኧቝኦ वኧयትययትቱᮔलय मख़ነ वदैኃयትंवኧ 31 .10 .2022 वኧो जमयት वኧरवय़यትई अኋቌቒቤ आज वदैኃयትंवኧ 28 .12 .2022 वኧो मख़ነ आपवኧቝኦ वኧयትययትቱᮔलय मख़ነ उपपसउथኋቌ ख़ोवኧर reporting application, checklist, and fee receipt जमयት वኧरवय़यት र ख़यት ख़ኩ। वኧृपययት मቝኦरी reporting 30.10.2022 सቝኦ वኧरवय़यትैኃቝኦ वኧयት सौ ख़यትदቱᮔ वኧरवय़यትए।"
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
(9 of 11)
documents which must have been deposited by him at the time of admission and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Counsel further submits that the seat was allotted to the petitioner in the Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur which is shown vacant on 02.11.2022 at 5:38-58 PM and in this regard the additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents according to which MD Pediatrics seat of Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur was shown vacant in the Mop-UP round held on 21.11.2022 and the same is shown in the seat matrix uploaded on 22.11.2022 and thereafter, the Counseling Board considered regarding the seat earlier allotted to the petitioner which fell vacant due to his not submitting the complete required documents to the concerned college and as per the opinion given by the college one seat of MD Pediatrics is lying vacant and the Counseling Board allotted seat of MD Pediatrics in Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur in their combined Mop-UP round held on 25.11.2022 in favour of respondent No.4 as per his merit, thereafter, the respondent No.4 has also reported to Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur on 26.11.2022 and was given admission by the college in the PG course (Pediatric) where he joined on 13.12.2022. Counsel further submits that so far as the judgment cited by the petitioner in the matter of Asha (supra) is concerned, in that matter the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted admission to the candidate in the next year course and there was no mistake on the part of candidate whereas in the present case the petitioner himself has admitted his mistake regarding taking away with him the documents which were required to be submitted to the concerned college. Counsel further submits that the another judgment cited by the counsel for
(10 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
the petitioner in the matter of Dolly Chhanda (supra) is also not applicable in the facts of the present case.
(11 of 11)
[2023/RJJP/006936]
[CW-1243/2023]
the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/196
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who failed to submit required admission documents due to his own negligence can be allowed to continue PG medical studies.
Whether the memorandum discharging the petitioner from liability for cancellation of admission is maintainable when third party rights have already been created.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health SciencesReferred¶32
Asha Vs. Pt.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 389 · Who else cites this
Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEEDistinguished¶52
Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chiarman, JEE and Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Ashish Ranjan vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶64
Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Dr. Sunil Kumar Saini
State Of Rajasthan
Office Of The Chairman, Neet Pg Admission/ Counseling Board-2020
The Principal And Controller Dr. S.n. Medical College, Jodhpur
Mohan Lal
INDERJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
