SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Deepanshu Bhadoriya - Appellant
Versus
Medical Council of India - Respondent
LPA 581 of 2019
Decided On : 09-09-2021




Admissions in educational institutions must strictly adhere to centralized counselling processes as mandated by precedents to maintain fairness and transparency in selections.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 144 - Medical Council of India Act - Discharge of students admitted outside centralized counselling - The petitioners were admitted to a medical college without undergoing the mandatory centralized counselling process. Despite their claims of merit and the college's late admissions, the court upheld the discharges based on prior Supreme Court rulings establishing strict adherence to centralized counselling requirements, stating such backdoor entries are unfair and diminish the merit-based admission system. (Paras 6, 8, 36, 38)

(B) Admissions - Irregularities in Admission Process - The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that admissions conducted without proper respect for the centralized system are impermissible despite claims of merit and the lack of an alternative candidate barring university rules. (Paras 16, 34, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were admitted to a medical college despite not participating in the compulsory centralized counselling after the NEET examination, leading to their discharge by the Medical Council of India when their admissions were found to be in contravention of established legal precedent.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and reinforced that backdoor entries violate the clear judicial mandate, leading to their dismissals.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the legality of the admissions granted outside the centralized counselling process and if equitable relief could be afforded to the petitioners despite their claimed merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court firmly stated that admissions conducted contrary to the Supreme Court's directives on centralized counselling are illegal and cannot be approved, regardless of the petitioners' merits.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. admissions should follow centralized counselling systems. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
2. merit does not justify bypassing admission processes. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. institutional responsibility in managing admissions. (Para 14 , 15)
4. equity cannot override lawful procedures. (Para 17 , 24 , 26)
5. appeal dismissed; institutions must adhere to lawful admission protocols. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (ORAL)

C.M. Nos.14820/2021 & 15797/2021

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

LPA 581/2019 and C.M. Nos.40061/2019, 14730/2021 & 15796/2021

3. We have heard submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellants, as well as learned counsel for the Medical Council of India (MCI); State of MP, and the respondent Medical College/ university, and we proceed to decide the present appeal.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 10933/2018 titled Deepanshu Bhadhoria and Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and Ors. The said petition had been preferred by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgement, did not find merit in the petition, and the same was dismissed.

5. We would refer to the appellants, as petitioners, in the present judgement.

6. The petitioners participated in the NEET conducted by the CBSE for admission to the under-graduate medical courses in the year 2016. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide its judgement rendered on 02.05.2016 in Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353, held that admissions to all Government and Private Medical Colleges in the county would be held through the centralized counselling system on the basis of the result of the NEET examination. The petitioners were eligible and qualified to participate in the centralized counselling conducted by the respondent State Government, i.e. the State of Madhya Pradesh, for admissions to under- graduate medical courses in the said State. The respondent Medical College i.e. the L.N. Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal is also one of the Medical Colleges, wherein admissions for the Academic Year 2016-17 had to be made through the centralized counselling. The centralized counselling was to be conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME).

7. It appears that despite the aforesaid judgement, admissions were being made contrary to the said decision by the Medical Colleges, through private counselling. The Supreme Court took note of the same, and vide order dated 22.09.2016 - while dealing with the Contempt Petition titled "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jainarayan Chaouksey and Ors.", (2016) 9 SCC 412 held as follows :-

    " We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We observe that mandate of our judgment was to hold centralised entrance test followed by centralised state counselling by the State to make it a one composite process. We, therefore, direct that admission to all medical seats shall be conducted by centralised counselling only by the state Government and none else.

    If any counselling has been done by any College or University and any admission to any medical seat has been given so far, such admission shall stand cancelled forthwith and admission shall be given only as per centralised counselling done by the State Government.

    We may note at this stage that the State Government has done the first counselling.- However, the learned Additional Solicitor , General has made a statement at the Bar that the State Government is ready to undertake the entire process afresh and assures that it would be completed by 30th September, 2016 which is the last date for admission. We also feel that it is a proper course of action inasmuch as it will enable the private institutions to send their representatives at the place of counselling as per the information which may be displayed by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top