The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of admission must be in accordance with the statutory rules governing the admission and counselling process, and the authority for cancellation is vested in the Dean of the college under Rule 3.4.

Petitioner who had appeared in the All India Pre Medical Test, 2014 and secured merit position AIR No. 44014 and OBC ranking 17347 participated in the counselling process undertaken in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 3. The counselling commenced from 23.6.2014 and the petitioner being lower in the merit appeared in the fourth offline counselling. It seems that the petitioner in the offline counselling was found entitled for allotment of seat in private medical college, namely People’s Medical College, Bhopal, but grievance of the petitioner is that within 30 minutes of allotment made to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 issued a cancellation order and communicated it to the petitioner, as the petitioner according to the Counselling Committee did not produced the original documents before the appropriate Committee at the time of allotment of seat. Challenging the aforesaid action, the writ petition was filed and while filing the writ petition various prayers were made in the writ petition, which includes challenge to clause 11 of the All India Pre medical Test-2014 Rules and Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Autonomous/Government Medical College and Dental Under-Graduate Admission Rules, 2014. That apart, a relief was sought for to say that the act of respondent No. 3 in cancelling the admission is illegal.

2. When the matter was taken up on 9.2.2016, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, (2014) 10 SCC 521 counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the issues raised by the petitioner in the writ petition stands answered against the petitioner. However, a prayer was made that in view of mental agony and pecuniary loss caused to petitioner, she be permitted to amend the writ petition and claim compensation. Accordingly, after 09.02.2016 the petition has been amended and now as per amended clause petitioner claims compensation of Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs) on account of illegal cancellation of her admission by respondent No. 3.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the provisions of Clause 3.4 of the Rules of 2014 and argued that the power for cancellation of the admission vests with the representative college and respondent No. 3 had no authority to cancel the admission granted. Accordingly, it was argued that the cancellation had been done illegally by respondent No. 3, he has no power to cancel the admission, it is only the Dean or the Principal of the College who is authorised to cancel the admission and if admission is illegally cancelled, prayer is made that the compensation be awarded.

Rule 3.4 relied upon by the petitioner reads as under :-

3.4 If it is found that a candidate has hidden any relevant facts and/or provided incorrect information while filling up the application form, at the time of scrutiny of the documents, at the time of allotment of a seat, or at the time of his/her admission, then the admission shall be cancelled by the Dean/Principal of the college, at any time during his/her studies and FIR shall also be lodged.

4. On the contrary, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate points out that Rule 3.4 comes into play only after the admission is properly granted and the candidate is admitted to the college after allotment. It is pointed out that, in this case, at the time of counselling itself it is found that petitioner had participated in the counselling in a manner which is contrary to rule. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Rules for counselling as contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014 and points out that at the time of admission itself, the candidate is required to produce all the original documents and as in this case the petitioner did not produced the original documents at the time of counselling, it is stated that immediately when these facts came to the notice of resp