IMPORTANT POINT
Directions given for putting matters at rest and to ensure that the authorities act in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.-Leave granted.

2. Admission to the medical courses (MBBS and BDS) has been consistently a subject of judicial scrutiny and review for more than three decades. While this Court has enunciated the law and put to rest the controversy arising in relation to one facet of the admission and selection process to the medical courses, because of ingenuity of the authorities involved in this process, even more complex and sophisticated set of questions have come up for consideration of the Court with the passage of time. One can hardly find any infirmities, inaccuracies or impracticalities in the prescribed scheme and notifications in regard to the process of selection and grant of admission. It is the arbitrary and colourable use of power and manipulation in implementation of the schedule as well as the apparently perverse handling of the process by the concerned persons or the authorities involved, in collusion with the students or otherwise, that have rendered the entire admission process faulty and questionable before the courts. It is the admissions granted arbitrarily, discriminately or in a manner repugnant to the regulations dealing with the subject that have invited judicial catechism. With the passage of time, the quantum of this litigation has increased manifold.

3. Thus, it is both the need of the hour and the demand of justice that this Court clarifies its decision and states the principles with greater precision so as to ensure elimination of colourable abuse and arbitrary exercise of power in the process of selection and admission to these professional courses by all concerned.

4. Therefore, in our view, though the present appeal arises from very simple facts, yet it raises questions of considerable importance and application. These questions are bound to arise repeatedly not only before this Court, but even before the High Courts. Therefore, it is imperative for us to formulate the questions and answer them in accordance with law.

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?

(b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic year is a date which admits any exception?

(c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?

(d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the court before passing orders which may be more equitable, but still in strict compliance with the framework of regulations and judgments of this court governing the subject?

6.The appellant cleared her Secondary examination (medical stream) with 75% marks and was eligible for taking medical entrance examination as she fulfilled the requisite criteria to take that exam. Pt. B.D. Sharma University (for short ‘the University’) issued a notification/advertisement for the entrance examination for MBBS, BDS and BAMS to be held in the first week of May, 2011. The appellant applied for the same in the Backward Class ‘B’ (for short ‘BCB’) and dependent of Ex- Serviceman (ESM) category. Her application was accepted and roll number was issued to her. The date of the examination was fixed for 12th June, 2011 by the University. The appellant was declared successful in the entrance examination having secured 832 marks. The appellant was at serial number 13 of the ESM category. All concerned were informed that the first counseling for allotment of seats was to be held on 14th -15th July, 2011. In this counseling, the appellant was not admitted to MBBS Course as she was lower in merit. Consequently, she took admission in the BDS Course on that very day. Thereafter, a declaration was made by the respondents that the second counseling for allotment of seats in the MBBS course would be held on 20th September, 2011. The appellant ag