The previous court decisions were binding on the respondents and the petitioners should be considered as ST candidates for admission.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition dated January 6, 2021 is at the instance of three petitioners belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category (hereafter 'the ST category', for short). They allege wrongful denial of admission in Namo Medical Education and Research Institute, Silvassa for pursing the MBBS Course. The ground on which the petitioners have been denied admission is that although they may have obtained a 'Domicile Certificate' of the requisite character, their ancestors had migrated to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and, therefore, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312, and a previous decision of the same Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 140, they cannot be regarded as ST candidates.

2. The first time we considered the writ petition on January 8, 2021, Mr. Walia, learned advocate for the petitioners had contended that the ground on which the petitioners were denied admission was precisely the ground on which one Mihir Dipak Patel, s/o Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel, was denied admission; and the father-son duo having approached this Court with a writ petition [bearing Writ Petition No. 10868 of 2019 : Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel & anr. vs. Union of India & ors.], in which a Division Bench referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of recent origin in Director, Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and Ors. vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 434. Relying on such decision, the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated November 18, 2019 proceeded to hold that the Union Territory Administration acted illegally in denying admission to the petitioner no.2, i.e., Mihir Dipak Patel. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to admit him in the MBBS course. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court but the Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed by an order dated November 16, 2020.

3. Mr. Walia, accordingly, was heard to contend that the issue being covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel (supra), the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment.

4. Mr. Venegaokar, learned advocate for the respondents, however, had submitted that the admission process, except for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), has been closed on 31st December, 2020 and no seats remain vacant where the petitioners can be accommodated. Such a submission was advanced, noticing that this Court was leaning in favour of grant of relief to the petitioners in view of the judgment and order in Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel (supra).

5. We, however, declined interim relief to the petitioners by our order dated January 8, 2021 but called upon the respondents 2 to 4 to support the statement of closure of admissions for the ST category made by Mr. Venegaokar by producing documentary evidence on the next date, i.e. January 11, 2021.

6. Documents produced before us by Mr. Venegaokar on January 11, 2021 did not conclusively establish that admissions for the ST category were closed by December 31, 2020. What were produced appeared to be lists pertaining to "Provisional Allocation of Seats". On perusal thereof, we observed that the process of admitting students belonging to the ST category was prima facie flawed and the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they were wronged did impress us. We had, accordingly, expressed our opinion orally that the respondents need to undo the wrong by admitting the petitioners. It was then contended by Mr. Venegaokar that relief should not be granted in favour of the petitioners, since there are other candidates belonging to the ST category who had secured more marks than the petitioners in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for short 'the NEET', hereafter), being the qualifying examination. Considering the submissions of the parties,