Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIKAS MAHAJAN
Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. administrative orders and initial pleas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge to admission notification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal precedents concerning candidate admission rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's assessment of university's criteria. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. implications of merit-based admissions. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. decision regarding interim relief. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 53435/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16871/2022 & CM APPL. 53436/2022 (for stay)
3. Issue notice.
4. Ms. Ayushi Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and 4 (Directorate of Higher Education) and Ms. Anita Sahani, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University) respectively, accept notice.
5. Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks from today.
6. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
7. Notice be issued to respondent no.3 (All India Council for Technical Education) through all modes.
8. The petitioner is an institute affiliated to the responden
The court upheld that while institutions possess the right to admit students, there is no entitlement to fill all available seats, emphasizing merit-based admissions per regulatory guidelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission procedure must ensure admissions are done strictly in accordance with merit, and the freedom to run educational institutions is ....
Admissions to medical colleges must be based on merit and conducted through authorized counseling, and any admission contrary to the mandatory provisions cannot be approved.
The issuance of Notice No. 10 dated 26-9-2023 by respondent No. 4 was in violation of the rules and regulations of the NMC Act, and the communication/order dated 18-10-2023 by respondent No. 2 was ju....
The court upheld that an upgrade in seat allocation excludes candidates from participating in subsequent admission rounds, aligning with the established university admission policy.
The court emphasized the application of Rule 12 (8) (ka) of the M.P. Medical Education (Admission) Rules, 2018, which governs the inclusion of vacant seats in subsequent rounds of counselling.
Candidates not domiciled in Uttar Pradesh must meet higher cut-off marks for Unreserved/Open category to qualify for counselling, regardless of their reservation status in their home state.
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
