The court emphasized that students should not be penalized for administrative errors by educational institutions, allowing regularization of admissions on equitable grounds.

Judgment :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. These writ petitions involve almost common facts and law and hence, being disposed of conjointly.

2. However, for the sake of brevity and clarity, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021 : Pooja Punaram Patel & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Anr.

3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel espousing the cause of the petitioners submitted that all the three petitioners, namely, Pooja Punaram Patel, Kanishka Sharma and Harshita Sadhwani have appeared in NEET Examinations-2019 and had cleared the same and took admission in the Vyas Dental College and Hospital, Jodhpur in accordance with law. However, the allegation leveled by the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘RUHS’) and Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCI’), is that their names had not been uploaded on the official websites of DCI and RUHS by cut-off date i.e. 15.09.2019 by the respondent – college. 4. He asserted that the petitioners got admission and pursued their studies after being provisionally admitted by the RUHS on 18.09.2019. Meanwhile, DCI sent a letter to all the dental colleges to send list of students admitted and in furtherance whereof, the colleges sent list of the students on 01.10.2019.

5. The respondent No.2 – Vyas Dental College vide letter dated 01.10.2019 furnished the details of the students with a plea that due to inadvertence the names of the petitioners were not reflected in the list which was furnished on 15.09.2019. DCI forwarded the list of the students so sent by the college to the Director, Medical Education during which it was revealed that the petitioners’ name were not reflected in the initial list which was uploaded by the college on 15.09.2019.

6. In the first writ petition out of the captioned writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021), the discrepancy which was found by the respondents was that the names of the petitioners (Pooja Punaram Patel, Kanishka Sharma and Harshita Sadhwani) were not reflected in the list which was uploaded by the college on the official websites of the DCI and RUHS.

7. The DCI issued communication dated 03.12.2019 and asked the respondent - college to discharge the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in spite of the fact that the respondent – college had received the communication dated 03.12.2019 neither the petitioners were informed nor they were discharged by the respondent – college and it was only when the admission cards to appear in the first year examination were not issued to them, they came to know about the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the DCI.

8. The fact that DCI had passed an order dated 03.12.2019 had came to the knowledge of the petitioners only after filing of the writ petition. They have moved an amendment application and challenged the order dated 03.12.2019.

9. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as petitioners other than those involved in the first writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021) are concerned, they stand on slightly different footings. The allegations against the remaining students are that though their names were reflected in the list which was uploaded by the respondent – college (or list uploaded for the respective academic years) on 15.09.2019, but their admission were not in accordance with law as they were not registered with the Rajasthan NEET UG Counseling Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Counseling Board’).

10. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as the petitioners of the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021 are concerned, they had got admission prior to the cut-off date, but it was due to inadvertence or fault of college which did not forward their names to the RUHS and DCI, for which, neither the petitioners can be blamed nor can their admission be canceled.

11. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the petitioners’ educational qua