IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sabina, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Himanshi - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 9065 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2023
Medical government college - Allowed to continue her classes - Grant a seat - Petitioner be allowed to continue her classes at Medical College cancelling her admission may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside - A vacancy appeared for Mop up round only because Ms. Shivani had provisionally surrendered her seat in respondent No. 4-College for seeking option for a better Institution. (Para 11)
Finding of the Court: A vacancy appeared for Mop up round only because Ms. Shivani had provisionally surrendered her seat in respondent No. 4-College for seeking option for a better Institution - She had wrongly opted for same College i.e. respondent No. 4 while submitting her options for up-gradation - Number of seats for MBBS/BDS Courses in an Institution is fixed and cannot be increased at whims - It is not case of petitioner that she had applies to appropriate authority for increase of seats in respondent No.4-College - That being so, petitioner cannot be held entitled to reliefs, as claimed in petition – Court is satisfied that there is no malafide on part of respondents - Whatever happened, though unfortunate, was unintentional - It is also not case that a less meritorious student has been admitted in preference to petitioner - Ms. Shivani had higher marks than petitioner – Court do not find any merit in petition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Heard.
2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:
ii. In case if there are no seats available in college of respondent no. 4 then petitioner be allotted/granted a seat in other medical government college such as Dr. Yashwant Parmar Govt. Medical College Nahan Sirmour or Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College Kumarhatti, District Solan where seats are yet to be filled.”
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that petitioner appeared in NEET (UG) Exam 2022. She scored 473 marks, out of total 720 marks. Petitioner got herself registered online for UG-MBBS/BDS Course with respondent No. 2. Petitioner did not find place for admission in any of the Medical Colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh during first and second round of counselling. On 14.12.2022, respondent No. 2 published a list of candidates, who were allotted seats for MBBS/BDS Course in Mop up round. Name of petitioner found mention at serial No. 5 of the list published on 14.12.2022 and she was shown to have been provisionally allotted respondent No. 4-College. Petitioner got herself admitted in respondent No. 4-College on 17.12.2022 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 60,000/-.
4. Petitioner, prior to her admission in respondent No. 4-College, was undergoing BSC Nursing Course from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. Petitioner obtained No Objection Certificate from IGMC, Shimla and commenced her MBBS classes in respondent No. 4-College on 20.12.2022. She attended the classes till 23.12.2022 and on the next day i.e. 24.12.2022, petitioner was informed by respondent No. 4 that her admission stood cancelled vide letter of the same date Annexure P8.
5. Aggrieved against the cancellation of her admission in MBBS Course, vide Annexure P8, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition on the ground that the action of respondents in cancelling her admission in respondent No.4-College is illegal. The respondents have acted in malafide manner. Their impugned action is unreasonable and arbitrary. The respondents have cancelled the admission of petitioner without assigning any reasons. Petitioner had already left her BSC Nursing Course and hence, the respondents were estopped from cancelling her admission.
6. Respondents No. 1 and 4 have filed their joint reply, whereas, respondents No. 2 and 3 have placed on record written instructions. Learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the matter be decided on the basis of written instructions, placed on record, on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
7. Respondents No. 1 and 4 have submitted that the admission to the MBBS/BDS Courses is domain of respondent No. 2-University. Petitioner was admitted by respondent No. 4, when she was recommended for admission after Mop up round by respondent No. 2 and her admission was cancelled also on the asking of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the admission of petitioner in respondent No. 4-College was result of a technical flaw. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 4 has 15 seats for SC category students in MBBS Course. By admitting petitioner, the said quota had exceeded. The matter was immediately inquired and the technical flaw in admission process was noticed, which resulted in cancellation of the admission granted to the petitioner.
8. Respondents No. 2 and 3, by way of written instructions, have placed on record the factual position. It has been submitted that a student named Ms. Shivani had been admitted in respondent No.4-College in MBBS Course against SC category in the first round of counselling. She was placed at serial No. 421 with State merit No. 496. Similarly, another student named Ms. Kajal Kumari had se
Number of seats for MBBS/BDS Courses in an Institution is fixed and cannot be increased at whims.
The High Court cannot direct the creation of additional seats for admission contrary to the statutory framework.
A procedural mistake by a student may be excused when it risks depriving a meritorious candidate of their admission, emphasizing the importance of justice over strict adherence to rules.
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 court affirmed the principle that students should not be penalized for institutional errors in admissions when they are qualified, allowing them to continue their studies.
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.
Admissions should not be cancelled without any wrongdoing or default on the part of the candidate, and the responsibility of the institution in granting admissions is emphasized.
In cases of erroneous admissions, the institution cannot cancel admissions after the course has started if the candidates were not at fault, and the principle of estoppel applies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.