The terms and conditions of the admission process bind the parties, and the Court's interference in academic matters should be minimal, with a focus on ensuring finality to admissions.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - These intra Court appeals impugn the common judgment dated 2nd December, 2020 of dismissal of W.P.(C) Nos.8527/2020, 8592/2020, 7831/2020, 7832/2020 and W.P.(C) No.9206/2020, preferred by the appellants.

2. The writ petitions were filed, with respect to the entrance examination for admission in the M.Sc and Ph.D. courses for the academic year 2020- 2021 of the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). As per the prospectus published for admission, even those who till the stipulated date, may not have cleared the qualifying examination but were likely to clear the qualifying examination by the stipulated date, were permitted to apply but further provided that if such candidates do not clear the qualifying examination by the stipulated date, they would not be admitted. The appellants appeared in the entrance examinations held and in the result declared, though found themselves in the merit list at a position which would have entitled them to admission, could not secure admission owing to having not cleared the qualifying examination by the stipulated date. This led to the filing of the writ petitions, aggrieved from order of dismissal whereof these appeals have been filed.

3. Vide orders dated 17th December, 2020 and 6th January, 2021 in these appeals, status quo was directed to be maintained and as a consequence whereof the courses which were to commence in August and September, 2020, have not commenced till now. Owing thereto, urgency was expressed on the last date of hearing and appeals listed for hearing for today.

4. The counsel for AIIMS states that though a large part of the first year of the two year course is already over, but the Academic Council of AIIMS, today morning has instructed him to make a statement before this Court that if the status quo is lifted, the curriculum will be completed before the end of the academic year, by making up for the lost time by holding classes on all holidays.

5. We have heard the counsels for the appellants and the counsels for the respondents. Though the facts may be different qua each of the appellants but the thread running through the arguments is the same.

6. The appellants could not clear the qualifying examination by the stipulated date owing to their respective universities having delayed, either the conduct of the qualifying examinations or the declaration of result of the examinations and which delay has cost them the admission in the M.Sc and Ph.D. courses at the respondent AIIMS in spite of securing a position in the merit list.

7. The counsels for the appellants have argued, (i) that AIIMS itself delayed the admission process and the result of the entrance examination, though originally expected to be declared in July, 2020, was declared only in October, 2020; however notwithstanding its own delays, the respondent AIIMS is insisting upon sticking to the cut-off date stipulated in the prospectus for clearing the qualifying examination; (ii) that once AIIMS itself has delayed the entrance examination, the declaration of the result thereof and the entire admission process, the cut off date should also be proportionally changed; (iii) there is no delay or fault attributable to any of the appellants and the appellants cannot be made to suffer for reasons over which they had no control and which were of general nature, applicable to all; (iv) that though AIIMS is not governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) but UGC also has granted extension of timelines owing to the prevalent Covid-19 pandemic and on the same parameters, AIIMS also ought to have extended the cut off date and cannot deprive admission to meritorious students on such grounds; reliance is placed on S. Krishna Sradha Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh,2019 SCCOnLineSC 1609, judgment of a three Judge Bench on a reference owing to the apparent conflict in Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 and Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jasmi