High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, Dwarka Dhish Bansal, JJ.
SHRUTI d/o BHAGWAN PATIDAR – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 8499 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Mandamus - MBBS Admission - NEET Examination - Enrollment Number - College Level Counseling - Admission Rules - Supreme Court Judgments
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to obtain an enrollment number for the first professional examination of the MBBS course and to be treated with the regular batch of 2019-20. The petitioner had appeared in the NEET (UG) 2019 examination, scored 362 marks, and was allotted a seat in a private medical college. The petitioner belonged to the OBC category and contended that she was rightfully allotted a reserved category seat. Despite completing all formalities and succeeding in the examination, the enrollment number was not issued to her, leading to the filing of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's admission was not in accordance with the Regulations, Admission Rules, and Adhiniyam of 2007. The petitioner did not participate in authorized counseling and was not the most meritorious candidate for the reserved category seat. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the admission granted to the petitioner by the college was contrary to the law.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the petitioner's admission process, the issuance of the enrollment number, and the legality of the college's actions in granting her admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that admissions to medical colleges must be based on merit and conducted through authorized counseling. It held that the petitioner's admission was not in conformity with the statutory provisions and that no admission contrary to the mandatory provisions could be approved.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of substance, and the court found no fault in the action of the University in not providing the enrollment number to the petitioner. The court also allowed the petitioner to take recourse of law against the college for the grievance of wasted time during her studies.
ORAL ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent No. 3 to issue the enrollment number to the petitioner for first professional examination of MBBS Course (Academic Session 2019-20) and to permit her to appear in the examination as a special candidate. It is further payed that the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by her of two golden years of her life because of the omission and commission of the respondents. Lastly, it is prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat her with the regular batch of 2019-20 with other candidates who have appeared in the first professional examination of MBBS. Petitioner’s contentions : –
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that she appeared in NEET (UG) 2019 examination and scored 362 marks. She was allotted a seat of MBBS course in the Amaltas Institute of Medical Science, Dewas (MP) (a private medical college). The petitioner belongs to OBC category. The score card of NEET examination is filed as Annexure P/1 and admission receipt dated 16-8-2019 is filed as Annexure P/2.
3. Online counseling choice of petitioner for second round of counseling, 2019 is filed as Annexure P-3. The petitioner belongs to reserved category i.e. OBC category and therefore, she was allotted the seat in Amaltas Institute of Medical Science. The seat was allotted to her which was lying vacant because of non-joining of a Scheduled Tribe category candidate Ms. Shristi Thakur. The petitioner’s contention is that petitioner ultimately occupied a reserved category seat and did not encroach any other category.
4. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the said admission in the Amaltas College, the petitioner scored 70 marks out of total 118 marks in First Batch of MBBS 2019-2020. The result showing the same is filed as Annexure P/6. It is urged that petitioner has completed all the formalities and she is regularly attending the classes in respondent No. 4/College. This is nobody’s case that petitioner was not eligible to appear in the first professional examination conducted by respondent No. 3. Although, petitioner burnt her midnight oil and succeeded in the examination in flying colours, she could not reap the benefits because enrollment number was not issued to her in the aforesaid examination. The petitioner was shocked and surprised to know the same and expected that her grievance will be redressed at the level of the respondents. Since, enrollment number was ultimately not issued, she filed the present petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner deposited all the requisite amount of fees on 3-10-2019 and 8-11-2019 by Annexure P/4 and P/5, respectively. She appeared in second internal professional examination and out of total 135 students those 20 students who cleared the examination included the name of present petitioner.
6. For the purpose of taking admission, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 16-8-2019 (Annexure P/8) and on the strength of the same, she was permitted to occupy a seat in the College. On 5-2-2021, an e-mail application for grant of enrollment number was sent. The Supreme Court by interim order dated 3-2-2021 permitted initiation of process for filling up seven unfilled seats of first year MBBS Course in the mop-up round for the year 2020-2021 through college level counseling within seven days. The respondent No. 4/College sent a letter dated 4-2-2021 to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination by issuing enrollment number in her favour, but this letter went in vain.
7. On the basis of aforesaid factual backdrop, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the college rightly conducted the college level counselling before the cut-off date in the year 2019. No other student was present at that
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....
Provisional admissions in medical colleges must adhere strictly to established counseling protocols to safeguard merit in the admission process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of merit and fair procedure in completing admissions to medical courses, and the entitlement of a wrongfully denied student to compe....
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 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.
Admissions in educational institutions must strictly adhere to centralized counselling processes as mandated by precedents to maintain fairness and transparency in selections.
Meritorious candidates who have pursued their legal right expeditiously without delay and have been denied admission to MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of theirs....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission of students to the MBBS course must adhere to the proper procedure for filling vacant seats as per the judgment of the Apex Cour....
Point of law: Occasion to consider the nature of relief that can be granted to a student after the last date of admissions in case it was found that the said candidate was denied admission illegally.
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.