Holding

The Division Bench was justified in holding that seats not included in any counselling by mistake must be filled in order of merit among wait‑listed candidates, and the rule permitting re‑counselling of already allotted candidates is invalid.

Summary

The Government framed Rules (1994) for admission to post‑graduate medical courses stipulating that a candidate's option exercised in the first counselling is final and that vacant seats thereafter are to be allotted only to candidates on the waiting list. A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that such vacant seats should be offered to all candidates, allowing those already allotted seats to change their choices. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside that order, holding that seats not included in any counselling by mistake must be filled solely among wait‑listed candidates to avoid a perpetual chain of re‑counselling that could delay completion of the three‑year course. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench’s reasoning, relying on precedents Dr Veena Gupta v. University of Delhi and Anil Jain v. The Controller of Examinations, and dismissed the appeals. Consequently, the rule limiting vacant‑seat allocation to wait‑listed candidates was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the rule allowing vacant seats after the first counselling to be offered to all candidates, including those already allotted seats, is valid.
Whether such a rule would lead to an endless counselling process contrary to the rationality and purpose of the admission scheme.

Subjects

post‑graduate medical admissioncounselling processwaiting listvacant seat allocationprocedural fairnessjudicial reviewSupreme Court of India

Judgment

1-

A ARVIND KUMAR KANKANE
V.

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

AUGUST 3, 2001

B (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

Education

Post-Graduate Medical Courses-Admissions-Rules-Framing of-
C Counselling process-Allotment ofsubjects after option exercised by candidates
to be final and subject to no change-Seats falling vacant subsequently-To
be filled in from candidates wait listed as per merits-On challenge, Single

D
Judge of High Court holding that subsequently fallen vacant seats should also
be offered to all candidates-On appeal, Division Bench of High Court holding
that if subsequently fallen vacant seats are offered to all candidates, it would
-
upset the entire counselling process-On appeal held, Division Bench of High
Court was justified in its findings.

Government framed certain Rules for admission to post-graduate
medical courses. The said Rules provided that option exercised by a candidate
E in first counselling regarding allotment of subject and college would be final
and not subject to change. Candidates who did not exercise their option at
the time of counselling would be kept in the waiting list and if at any
subsequent stage a seat falls vacant, the same would be allotted to them. On
challenge, Single Judge of High Court held that subsequently fallen vacant
seat would be offered to all candidates; and candidates already allotted seats
F in first counselling would also be permitted to exercise their option. However,
on appeal, the Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge
holding that any seat which was available and which was not included in any
of the counselling by mistake would be filled in, in order of merit amongst
the wait listed candidates and if it was offered for candidates, a chain reaction
G would start which would upset the entire counselling process. Hence, the
present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. Division Bench of High Court was justified in holding that
any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the
H 262
A.K. KANKANE v. STATE OF U.P. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 263
counselling by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit amongst the wait A
listed candidates. Once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of
which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to
participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process
of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may
not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period. B
(264-F; 265-C, DI

Dr. Veena Gupta v. University of Delhi, AIR (1994) Delhi 108 (FB) and
Anil Jain v. The Controller of Examinations, (1998) 3 E.S.C. Cases 2016,
approved.

2. The grievance that if a choice subject like surgery and medicine is C
given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate
who is lower in rank in the merit list, is only a fortuitous circumstance
depending on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a
seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and
thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit D
list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test ofreasonableness of the rule.

(265-E-F)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2649-51
of 2000.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated I I .2.2000 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. Nos. 1282, 1301 and 1374 of 1999.
WITH
C.A. No. 4752 of2000 and SLP (C) No. 5151/2000.

Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Subodh Markandaya, Yatish Mohan, Pankaj Kumar
F
Singh, K.L. Janjani, Pradeep Misra, Ms. Indu Misra, Ms. Chitra Markandaya,
Ms. Feroze Bano, Dr. l.B. Gaur, D.S. Mahara and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

C.A. Nos. 2649-2651/2000

In relation to admission to post-graduate medical courses, Rules were
framed under the Government order issued on March 30, 1994; it was provided H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A therein that the allotment of subject [speciality] and college of study made on
the basis of option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be
permitted to change the subject or the college. A candidate who does not
exercise his option at the time of counselling will be kept in the waiting list
and if at any subsequent stage a seat falls vacant the same shall be allotted
on the basis of the option exercised by those who are in the waiting list. Writ
B petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of these Rules.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court interpreting the rules directed
that when after the first counselling any subsequent counselling is decided to
be held for allocation of remaining seats including those which have fallen
C vacant subsequent to the first counselling, the same shall be notified to the
public and the first date of each subsequent counselling will be reserved for
the candidates who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who
wish to change their seats and out of the candidates, who were allotted seats
at the first counselling, who tum up for subsequent counselling on the first
date which is served for such students, distribution of seats which have fallen
D. vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be done according
to merit. The change of seat to these students who have been allotted seats
during the first and earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of
seats which have fallen vacant after the first counselling and not of the left
over seats.
E
Aggrieved by these directions, an appeal was preferred by the Director
General of Medical Education and Training. The Division Bench, after
considering the scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein and the
decisions of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta v.
University of Delhi, AIR (1994) Delhi 108 (FB) and of High Court of Punjab
F & Haryana in A nil Jain v. The Controller of Examinations, [I 998] 3 E.S.C.
Cases 2016, held that any seat which is available and which has not been
intluded in any of the three counselling by mistake should be filled in, in
order of merit amongst the wait listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is
available, the same should be included in the initial counselling. If by mistake
G a seat is not included in the initial counselling then the effect is that nobody
opts for the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all the
candidates for counselling, the result would be that all the candidates who
took part in the first counselling should be given a chance, in order of merit,
to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there
will be one seat more, which would become available for the second
H counselling. There again a chain reaction will start leading to the third
A.K. KANKANE v. STATE OF U.P. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 265

counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling for all A
candidates would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had
already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair,
there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the
said seat to the wait listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the
academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a B
period of three years and if the counselling goes on coniinuously for a long
period then it may not be possible to fulfill that condition and thereby upset
the course of study itself. On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the
order made by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against
this order and connected matters that the present appeals are filed by special
leave. c
We have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High
Court and before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the
Division Bench and Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta's case [supra] and
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in A nil Jain's case [supra] is in accord
with reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option D
is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and
... thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling
and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and,
as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the
academic course within the stipulated period.
E
The grievance made is that if a choice subject like surgery and medicine
is given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a
candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous
circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has
been allotted a seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling p
vacant and thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank
in the merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness
of the rule.

In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no merit in the appeals
and the same stand dismissed. No costs. G
C.A. No. 4752/2000 & SLP(C) No. 5151/20001

For the reasons given in C.A. Nos. 2649-2651/2000, this appeal and
SLP also are dismissed. No costs.
S.V.K. Appeals and SLP dismissed. H