The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of merit and fair procedure in completing admissions to medical courses, and the entitlement of a wrongfully denied student to compensation when granting admission is unfeasible.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 2 August 2022 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

3. The first appellant is a private state university in Himachal Pradesh established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act 2010. The first appellant runs the Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital at Kumarhatti, District Solan. The medical college has a prescribed intake of 150 seats for admission to the MBBS degree course as approved by the National Medical Commission¹["NMC"].

4. The first respondent is medical student currently pursuing her BDS course in a government dental college. The second respondent, Atal Medical and Research University, Himachal Pradesh, issued a prospectus for conducting centralized counselling for MBBS/ BDS courses based on the order of merit in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test²["NEET"] 2021 for the undergraduate medical courses. The first respondent appeared in NEET-UG 2021 and secured 456 out of 720 marks with a rank of 1,26,537. On 29 January 2022, the second respondent issued a schedule of admission for the MBBS/ BDS courses for academic session 2021-2022. The first respondent secured admission for the BDS course in Bhojia Dental College, Nalagarh and joined the course on 02 February 2022. In the second round of counselling, the first respondent secured admission for the BDS course in the HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla under the state quota.

5. After the completion of the second round of counselling, the medical college of the first appellant had 44 vacancies which were open for mop up counselling for admission to the first year MBBS degree course. Of these 44 seats, 4 were lying vacant under the state quota out of which 3 were under the general quota and one under the Scheduled Tribes quota. On 15 March 2022, the second respondent issued a schedule for conducting the mop up round for MBBS/ BDS courses. The appellant issued an advertisement for conducting the mop up round of counseling from NEET qualified candidates. Counselling was to take place from 10 am on 25 March 2022. On 24 March 2022, the second respondent forwarded to the appellants 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 counselling. The letter stated 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.

6. The first respondent filed an application with the medical college of the appellants together with the registration charges for admission to the MBBS course in the state quota. According to the appellants, the state quota seats in the general category were "automatically filled up" by upgrading the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents from the management quota to the state quota on 25 March 2022. The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents secured 440, 441, and 442 marks respectively, and were lower in merit to the first respondent, who secured 456 marks. Thereafter, the management seats were also filled up. Therefore, the first respondent could not secure an MBBS seat under state quota in the medical college run by the appellants.

7. A writ petition was instituted by the first respondent before the High Court on 29 March 2022 for redrawing the merit list for admission to the MBBS degree course in the mop up round of counselling held on 25 March 2022 for the general category seats under the state quota. The appellants filed replies. During the pendency of the proceedings, the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents, who were students originally admitted to the management quota but upgraded to the state quota, were impleaded as parties on 11 May 2022.

8. The High Court allowed the petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2 August 2022. It observed that the first respondent had t