1. Admission to medical course via private counselling in violation of state notification mandating centralized counselling based on a common entrance test. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 449 ; 2021 Supreme(SC) 456
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1835-1836 OF 2020 IN I.A. NO.183249 OF 2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.31037-31038 OF 2016, REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1988-1989 OF 2020
Decided on : 17-08-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Admissions to MBBS Course which were conducted through private counselling can be termed as per se illegal. Court cannot protect admissions which were done in a patently illegal manner.
Admissions to MBBS Course which were conducted through private counselling can be termed as per se illegal. Court cannot protect admissions which were done in a patently illegal manner.
Subject
Admission and Eligibility - Admission Process
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 137 – Review Petition – Non-conduct examination for 2nd year MBBS Course – Private counselling by Glocal Medical College was conducted contrary to Notification issued by State of Uttar Pradesh, which Notification, in turn, was based on judgment of this Court in case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre ((2016) 7 SCC 353) which was decided on 2.5.2016 – It was not at all permissible for Glocal Medical College to have conducted private counselling – Admissions which were conducted through private counselling cannot be termed as anything else but per se illegal – Court cannot protect admissions which were done in a patently illegal manner – It will not be possible to consider cases of review petitioners sympathetically – Students cannot be said to be ignorant about Notification issued by State of Uttar Pradesh – In such a situation, no sympathies can be shown to such students who have entered through backdoor – Review Petitions dismissed. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40)
Facts of the case:
Review petitioners have approached this Court seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 20.7.2020 thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3103731038 of 2016 filed by Glocal University, Glocal Medical College, Super Specialty Hospital and Research Centre and Abdul Waheeb Education and Charitable Trust. According to the review petitioners, they appeared for First Year Professional MBBS examination and cleared the same. However, Glocal Medical College did not conduct examination for the 2nd year MBBS and further the classes and practicals were also suspended by the College. According to review petitioners, this gave them a cause of action to file Writ Petition No.19399 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court. According to the review petitioners, only during the hearing of said petition, they came to know about the discharge order dated 27.1.2017 issued by MCI.
Findings of Court:
It is difficult to appreciate as to how the results of students were declared for the 1st year MBBS examination, how they were admitted in the 2nd year MBBS course and how they cleared the 2nd year MBBS examination, despite the fact that MCI had discharged the students vide order dated 27.1.2017.
Result : Review Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- education law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Pritha Suri, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Chandan Kumar Singh, Ankit Goel, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Manisha Suri, Nailendu Vatsyayan, Nishi kant Singh, Geetanjali Setia, S. R. Setia, P. George Giri, Jasmin Kurian Giri, Ravi Sagar, Linto K.B., Saratendu Kumar Bose, Naveen Kumar Dass, Anil Kumar Shukla, Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Apoorva Kurup, Ruchi Kohli, Aakanksha Kaul, Shiv Mangal Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Mona K. Rajvanshi, Anurag Kashyap, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Advocates
For the Parties :Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Pritha Suri, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Chandan Kumar Singh, Ankit Goel, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Manisha Suri, Nailendu Vatsyayan, Nishi kant Singh, Geetanjali Setia, S. R. Setia, P. George Giri, Jasmin Kurian Giri, Ravi Sagar, Linto K.B., Saratendu Kumar Bose, Naveen Kumar Dass, Anil Kumar Shukla, Aishwarya Bhati, Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Apoorva Kurup, Ruchi Kohli, Aakanksha Kaul, Shiv Mangal Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Mona K. Rajvanshi, Anurag Kashyap, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim eligibility via entrance test and academic progress; respondents contend admissions were illegal backdoor entries violating centralized counselling mandates. (Para 17 , 18 )
3. Centralized counselling ensures transparency and merit; private counselling in contravention of state notifications and judicial precedents is patently illegal and cannot be protected by sympathy. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Admissions conducted through private counselling in violation of a mandated centralized process are illegal and cannot be sustained on grounds of equity or sympathy. (Para 27 , 28 , 35 )
5. Review petitions dismissed. (Para 40 )
6. Is the state permitted to mandate centralized counselling for admissions to private professional educational institutions?
Yes, the state can regulate admissions through a centralized single-window procedure to ensure fairness, transparency, and merit-based selection, preventing maladministration without infringing on the fundamental rights of institutions to run their establishments. (Para 23 )
7. What is the legal status of admissions made through private counselling when a centralized counselling process is mandated?
Such admissions are per se illegal. When a state notification based on judicial precedents mandates centralized counselling, any private counselling conducted by institutions is contrary to law and the resulting admissions are void. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 )
8. Can students admitted in violation of admission rules be granted relief based on sympathy or academic progress?
No. Sympathy cannot override legal provisions or rules. Granting relief to those who gained advantage through illegal means jeopardizes the purity of the selection process and emboldens errant authorities. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
9. Does an interim order allowing students to appear in examinations validate an otherwise illegal admission?
No. An interim order permitting students to appear in exams, especially one directing that results not be published, does not modify the underlying illegality of the admission or vacate previous discharge orders. (Para 37 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The review petitioners have approached this Court seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 20.7.2020 thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016 filed by Glocal University, Glocal Medical College, Super Specialty Hospital and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘Glocal Medical College’) and Abdul Waheeb Education and Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘original writ petitioners’).
2. The review petitioners were not a party to the said petitions. They were admitted in 1st year Professional MBBS course for the Academic Session 2016-2017 in Glocal Medical College, which was affiliated to the Glocal University, a deemed University.
3. The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present review petitions are thus:
4. The review petitioners appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as ‘NEET’), 2016 and qualified the same. According to the review petitioners, therefore, they became eligible to get admission in MBBS course.
5. Vide Notification dated 31.8.2016, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a direction for conducting centralized counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS course in all colleges/universities in the State of Uttar Pradesh, including private colleges and minority institutions and further prescribed the schedule and procedure for counselling, reservation, eligibility criteria for admission, etc.
6. Vide another Notification dated 2.9.2016, the State of Uttar Pradesh directed that 50% of the sanctioned intake of private institutions shall be reserved for students who had domicile of State of Uttar Pradesh. The said direction was issued in respect of all the private institutions (excluding minority institutions) after deducting the pool of 15% for All India quota.
7. The said Notification dated 2.9.2016 came to be challenged before the High Court of Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No.20575 of 2016 and other connected writ petitions. The said petitions were decided on 15.9.2016 by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The order dated 15.9.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court came to be challenged by the original writ petitioners before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016.
8. It appears that in the interregnum, the original writ petitioners had conducted their private counselling despite Notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding common counselling. It further appears that in the meantime, some petitions for special leave to appeal also came to be filed by some of the students being SLP(C) No. 28886 of 2016. By a common order passed in the petitions for special leave to appeal, including the one filed by Madhvi Goel & others [SLP(C) No.28886 of 2016] and the one filed by Glocal University & others [SLP(C) No.31037-31038 of 2016], this Court passed the following order on 20.3.2017:
“As an interim measure, it is directed that the students prosecuting their studies in the petitioner-University in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016, may appear in the examination, but their results shall not be published. Needless to say, no equity shall be claimed on the basis of the present interim order.”
9. It further appears that in the meantime, the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’) issued a discharge letter dated 27.1.2017 to the Glocal Medical College and directed to discharge 67 students admitted by it, whose names did not figure in the list supplied by the Director General of Medical Education & Training (hereinafter referred to as ‘DGME’).
10. The said order dated 27.1.2017 of MCI came to be challenged by Glocal Medical College in this Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 411 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 18.9.2017, while disposing of the said petition with certain directions, observed thus:
“The students who have been admitted in pursuance of the letter of permission granted for the yea
