Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. MEHARE, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Grishma D/o Nanrendra Khaire - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of State Common Entrance Cell - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12129 Of 2024 With Civil Application No. 12060 Of 2024 in Writ Petition No.12129/2024
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) NEET-UG 2024-2025 - Admission process - Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, scored 533 marks but was denied admission for failing to report on time after provisional allotment - Court found no fault on part of the Respondents and upheld the admission process as per the brochure guidelines. (Paras 2, 10, 13, 19, 23)
(B) Disqualification for Admission - Abandonment of previous seat leads to disqualification under Clause 11.2.4 of NEET-UG 2023 - Court noted that the petitioner failed to prove deliberate denial of admission and did not make a case for creating a seat or awarding compensation. (Paras 16, 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allotted a seat in Respondent No.3/College but failed to report in time due to withheld documents from a previous college. She sought to confirm her seat after the reporting deadline had passed. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she was denied admission due to fault of the Respondents, and the admission process was strictly regulated. (Paras 12, 18)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied admission and if the Respondents were liable for her disqualification. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not report in time and failed to establish that the Respondents acted improperly, thus upholding the admission process as per the established guidelines. (Paras 10, 23)
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shailesh P. Brahme, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and she secured 533 out of 720 marks in NEET-UG for 2024-2025. She was allotted a seat in Respondent No.3/College for M.B.B.S. She was denied admission as she did not report the College within stipulated time. She has approached this Court seeking direction to confirm her seat in the Respondent No.3/College.
3. It is expedient to disclose the background of this petition. Petitioner was allotted B.D.S. College which was at Hingoli in the year 2023-2024. She had submitted original documents. She did not continue with the said College and appeared for NEET-UG 2024. She was issued a letter allotting a seat provisionally in the Respondent No.3/College. Her earlier College at Hingoli from which she had resigned withheld her documents. Being aggrieved she had to file Writ Petition No.1194/2024. It was disposed of by order dated 24.10.2024 with a direction to return all the original documents. After collecting the documents, when she reached Respondent No.3/College, time for reporting was over.
4. It was represented that the seat was vacant and she could be accommodated to it by extending time. In the vacation elaborate order was passed on 31.10.2024. Considering the developments that the seat matrix for CAP round – III was published on 25.10.2024. The declaration of the list of online vacancy was scheduled on 28.10.2024. The direction to accommodate her in the Respondent No.3/College was denied. She preferred Civil Application No.12060/2024 and solicited order on 05.11.2024 representing that till 04.11.2024 one seat reserved for SC (woman) was displayed to be vacant. The direction was issued restraining the Respondents from allotting seat in any manner which was allotted to the Petitioner provisionally. Later on it was transpired that no seat was available and already incumbent joined the Respondent No.3/College.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit-in-reply on record. It is contended that no seat was available on 05.11.2024. The Petitioner is disqualified as she abandoned her BDS Course. It is not possible to accommodate her either in the Respondent No.3/College or in any other College.
6. Respondent no.3/College did not cause the appearance despite service of notice for final hearing. It is not disclosed to us as to who is the candidate joining the Respondent No.3/College against the seat which was provisionally allotted to the Petitioner.That person is not party to the petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record brochure of NEET-UG 2024. It is canvassed that Petitioner is wrongly denied the admission and there was no mistake on her part. She was entitled for extension of time and there is discrimination at the instance of Respondents for not extending time. On 04.11.2024 up to 07:00 pm., a vacancy of SC (woman) was displayed and thereafter prohibitory order was passed on 05.11.2024. Respondent No.3/College wrongly admitted a student against seat allotted to the Petitioner. The said College is liable for the action. It is further submitted that the disqualification is not automatic and there is no decision by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik till this date.
8. It is submitted that this is a rarest case where indulgence of this Court is necessary for creating a post to accommodate the Petitioner or to permit the Petitioner to be adjusted in the next year by reducing one seat of the Respondent No.3/College. It is contended that in the alternative petitioner is entitled to compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matters of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2020) 17 SCC 465; Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Special Leave Petition (C) No.11785/2024; Vansh s/o Prakash Dolas Vs. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and F
The court upheld the admission process for NEET-UG 2024-2025, ruling that the petitioner failed to report on time and did not prove wrongful denial of admission.
The hyper-technical denial of admission based on a missing original caste certificate was ruled unjust, necessitating recognition of merit-based rights and valid documents.
The Court emphasized that technicalities regarding caste certification should not deny admission to eligible candidates, supporting restitutionary justice for meritorious students.
The court upheld the admission process rules, stating that a student who submits a status retention form cannot later challenge subsequent admissions, ensuring fairness in the allocation of seats.
Higher merit cannot override established horizontal reservation rules; allotment must strictly adhere to statutory frameworks.
Admission eligibility and documentation requirements for AYUSH courses based on NEET-UG Exam 2019 and relevant regulations.
Point of law: Occasion to consider the nature of relief that can be granted to a student after the last date of admissions in case it was found that the said candidate was denied admission illegally.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
