ASHAversusPT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS.

                        [2012] 6 S.C.R. 876


A                            ASHA
                               v.
     PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
                            & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2012)
B
                           JULY 10, 2012
       [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)

         EDUCATION:
c
        Medical admissions - MBBS course - Candidate
  securing more marks and placed higher in merit list, ignored
  on the ground of absence in counseling during relevant time
  - Held: The rule of merit for preference of courses and
0 colleges admits no exception - It is an absolute rule and all
  stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow
  this rule strictly and without demur - Record indicates that the
  candidate was present in the counseling at the time of
  attendance and even subsequent thereto - Directions issued
E for her admission to MBBS course.

       Medical admissions - Cut-off-date - Exception - Held:
  30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the
  admitted students should report to their respective colleges
  wifhout fail - Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional
F cases, admission may be permissible but such power may
  preferably be exercised by the courts only if the conditions
  stated by Supreme Court in the case of Priya Gupta and the
  instant judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied -
  Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the authorities
G and the students both - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141.

          Medical admissions -Refusal of admission if found
     arbitrary, violative of Rules and Regulations or contrary to
    judgments of Supreme Court - Remedy - Explained - Further
H                                876
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 877
                SCIENCES & ORS.
directions given in order to avoid ambiguity and to ensure that   A
authorities act in accordance with law.

     Medical admissions - Interim orders - Held: As has been
held in Priya Gupta's case, courts should avoid giving interim
orders where admissions are the matter of dispute - The-
                                                                  8
students who· pursue the courses under the courts' orders
would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision
of the case nor should it weigh with the courts - Equity.

    PLEADINGS:
                                                                  c
     Denial of an averrnent - Held: An averrnent made by the
appellant is expected to be specifically denied by the replying
party - If there is no specific denial, then such averrnent is
deemed to have been admitted by the respondent.

    The appellant, a candidate belonging to Backward D
Class B (BCB) and Ex-Serviceman (ESM) category,
secured 832 marks in the entrance examination for
MBBS, BOS and BAMS and was put at serial no. 13 of the
ESM category. In the first counselling held on 14-15th
July, 20.11, being lower in merit, she could not get E
admission in MBBS course and, therefore, she took
admission in the BOS course. She participated in. the
second counselling held on 20.9.2011, but her name waS'
not declared for the admission, and respondent no. 3,
who had secured less marks (821) than her and was F
placed at sl. No. 14 in ESM category, was given
admission in the MBBS course. She filed a writ petition
before the High Court. The single Judge allowed her
claim. The said order having been set aside by the
Division Bench .of the High Court, the writ petitioner filed G
the appeal

    Disposing of the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 The rule of merit for preference of courses
                                                                  H
   878     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 6 S.C.R.

A and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule
  and all stakeholders and authorities concerned are
  required to follow this rule strictly and without demur. It
  will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court
  and. duly notified by the States, if the rule of merit is
B defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods
  of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where
  the rule of merit can be compromised. Circumvention of
  merit is not only impermissible, but is also abuse of the
  process of law. Relaxation of the rule of merit for reason
c of non-appearance is not permissible. [para 22, 30 and
  36(a)] [893-B; 896-C, D; 900-G]

      Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr. 2012 (7)
  SCC 433; Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2005)
  13 SCC 464; Pradeep Jain v. UOl 1984 (3) SCR 942 = 1984
D (3) SCC 654; Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Director of
  Health Ser.vices and Another 1993 Supp (1) SCC 632; Preeti
  Srivastava v. State of MP 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 = (1999)
  7 SCC 120; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and
  Others 2005 (13) SCC 749; and A/IMS Students' Union v.
                                             =
E A/IMS and Others 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 (2002) 1 SCC
  428 - relied on.

       1.2 The judgments of this Court constitute the law of
  the land in terms of Art. 141 of the Constitution and the
F regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are
  statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all
  the parties concerned. Various aspE!cts of the admission
  process as of now are covered either by the respective
  notifications issued by the State ~overnments,
G prospectus issued by the colleges and, in any case, by
  the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.
  [para 27) (895-C-E]

     State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Others 2003 (1)
  Suppl. SCR 797     =(2003) 7 SCC 83; State of Punjab v.
H Dayanand Medical College & Hospital and Ors. 2001 (4)
ASHA v. PT. 8.0. SHAR.MA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 879
                SCIENCES & ORS.
Suppl. SCR 72 =AIR 2001 SC 3006; Bharati Vidyapeeth v. A
State of Maharashtra and Another 2004 (2) SCR 775 = (2004)
11 SCC 755; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others v.
State of "Gujarat and Others 2011 (2) SCR 1071 = (2011) 3
SCC 617; Harish Verma and Others v. Ajay Srivastava and
Another 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 833 = (2003) 8 SCC 69 - relied B
on

    Medical Council of India v. MadhtJ Singh and Others
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 = (2002) 7 SCC 258; Ms. Neelu
Arora and Another v. Union of India and Others 2003 ( 1 ) C
SCR 562 = (2003) 3 SCC 366; Aman Deep Jaswal v. State
of Punjab and Others 2005 (1) SCR 380 = (2006) 9 SCC 597;
Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and Others (2005)
12 SCC 626; Mridul Dhar and Another v Union of India and
Others 2005 (1) SCR 380 = (2005) 2 SCC 65- cited.
                                                            D
     1.3 There is no dispute to the fact ttiat the appellant
had appeared before the authorities and marked her
attendance in the attendance sheet on 20.9.2011. When
the list of successful candidates revealed that candidates
of merit lower to her had been admitted to the MBBS E
course, she instantly raised her claim and even submitted
a representation to the respondents, but to no avail. In the
reply filed on merits by the respondents, this aspect was
dealt with in a most casual manner and no specific denial
was made. It is a settled principle of law of pleadings that F
an averment made by the appellant is expected to be
specifically denied by the replying party. If there is no
specific denial, then such averment is deemed to have
been admitted by the respondent. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered view that the appellant has been able G
to make out a case for interference. [para 14, 16,17 and
18] [888-E-F; 889-F; 890-F-G;] [891-E-G]

   2.1 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by
which the admitted students should report to their
                                                            H
    880      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the
  admissions must close by holding of second counseling
  by 15th September of the relevant academic year in
  terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta.
  Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of
B unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing
  emergency, admission may be permissible but such
  power may preferably be exercised by the courts, only if
  the conditions stated in Priya Gupta's case and this
  judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and
c the reasons therefor are recorded by the court of
  competent jurisdiction. Adherence to the schedule is the
  obligation of the authorities and the students, both. The
  courts have consistently taken the view that the schedule
  is sacrosanct like the rule of merit. The prescribed
  schedule is to be maintained stricto sensu by all the
0
  stakeholders. The authorities should follow the
  procedure prescribed under the Rules and maintain due
  records thereof. [para 24, 26, 27 and 36(b)] [894:-A; 894-
  G-H; 895-D-E; 900-H; 901-A-D]

E        State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors. 1989 (2)
    Suppl. SCR 168 = (1990)" 4 SCC 624; Medical Council of
    India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 =
    (2002) 7 SCC 258; GSF Medical and Paramedical
    Association v. Association of Management of Self Financing
F   Technical Institutes and Anr. 2003 (12) SCC 414; Christian
    Medical College v. State of Punjab and Others (2010) 12
    sec 167 - relied on.
       2.2. In the instant case, since the appellant is not at
G fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as
  expeditiously as possible, this Court is of the considered
  view that the cut-off date· cannot be used as a technical
  instrument or tool to deny admission to a meritorious
  student. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in
H the instant case. [para 31] [897-C-D]
ASHA v. PT. 8.0. SHARMA' UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 881
                SCIENCES & ORS.
     Arti Sapru and Others v. State of J & K and Others 1981     A
(3) SCR 34 = (1981) 2 SCC 484; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director
General Health Services (1994) 2 SCC 370; and Aravind
Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and Others 2001 (1) Suppl.
SCR 262 = (2001) 8 sec 355 - relied on.
                                                                 B
     3.1. Wherever the court finds that the action of the
authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments
of this Court and violative of the Rules, regulations and
conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the
rights of the students, the court shall award
compensation to such students as well as direct                  C
initiation of disciplinary action against the·erring officers/
officials. The court shall also ensure that the proceedings
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated
against the erring authorities irrespective of their stature
and empowerment. Where the admissions given by the               D
authorities concerned are found by the courts to be
legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to
permit the students to continue with the course, the mere
fact that such students have put in a year or so into the
academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them         E
to continue with the course. [para 36(c) and (d)] [901-E-
H; 902-A]
     3.2. In fact, normally, keeping in view the factual
matrix of the case, this Court would have directed the
admission of the appellant to the MBBS course in the             F
academic year 2011-2012 and would further have directed
the re$pondents to pay compensation to her. But the
records show that the appellant has attended only 28 to
42 per cent lectures insteCld of the required 75 per cent
and has not even pursued her BOS course properly and,            G
thus, she has not fulfilled even the pre-requisites for
MBBS course, assuming that the BOS and MBBS
courses are similar for the first six months. In these
circumstances, the respondents are directed to give the
appellant admission to the MBBS course in the current            H
    882       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A academic year i.e. 2012-2013, subject to the condition that
  she will pursue her MBBS course right from the
  beginning without any advantage of her course in the
  BOS. While giving her admission to the MBBS course, the
  respondents shall follow the procedure as explained in
B the judgment. [para 33-35) [898-D; 899-D; 900-B-C]

       4. As has been held in Priya Gupta's case, it is
  reiterated that the courts should avoid giving interim
  orders where admissions are the matter of dispute. Even
C in cases where the candidates are permitted to continue
  with the courses, they should normally be not permitted
  to take further examinations of the professional courses.
  The students who pursue the courses under the orders
  of court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the
  final decision of the case nor should it weigh with the
D courts of competent jurisdiction. In order to put the matter
  to rest beyond ambiguity and to ensure that the
  authorities act in accordance with law, this Court issues
  further directions, as detailed in the judgment. [para 37
  and 38) [902-B-D]
E
                       Case Law Reference:
          2012 (7 > sec 433          relied on      para 22
          (2005) 13 sec 464          relied on      para 22
F         1984 (3) SCR 942           relied on      para 22
          1993 Supp (1) sec 632     relied on       para 22
          1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249   relied on       para 22

G         2005 (13) sec 149         relied on       para 22
          2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79    relied on       para 22
          1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 168   relied on       para 26
          2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228   relied on       para 26
H
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 883
                SCIENCES & ORS.
    2003 (12) .;cc 414           relied on       para 26      A
    c2010) 12 sec 167            relied on       para 26
    2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797      relied on       para 28
    2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 72       relied on       para 28
                                                              B
    2004 (2) SCR 775             relied on       para 28
     2011 (2) SCR 1071           relied on       para 28
     2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 833     relied on       para 28
                                                              c
    2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228      cited           para 30
     2003 (1) SCR 562            cited           para 30
     2006 (9) sec 597            cited           para 30
    2005 (12) sec 626            cited           para 30      D

     2005 (1 ) 'SCR 380          cited           para 30
    1981 ( 3 ) SCR 34            relied on       para 31a
     1994 < 2 >sec 370           relied on       para 31      E
    2001 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 262    relied on       para 31

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5055 of 2012.
                                                              F
    From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .01.2012 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 2129 of
2011.

    Himanshu Gupta, Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
                                                              G
    S.S. Upadhyay, Vikrant Yadav, M.C. Dhingra, Dr. Kailash
Chand, Rajat Rathee for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                              H
    884       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave grante.d.

          2. Admission to the medical courses (MBBS and BOS)
     has been consistently a subject of judicial scrutiny and review
    for more than three decades. While this Court has enunciated
    the law and put to rest the controversy arising in relation to one
8
    facet of the admission and selection process to the medical
    courses, because of ingenuity of the authorities involved in this
    process, even more complex and sophisticated set of questions
     have come up for consideration of the Court with the passage
    of time. One can hardly find any infirmities, inaccuracies or
C   impracticalities in the prescribed scheme and notifications in
    regard to the process of selection and grant of admission. It is
    the arbitrary and colourable use of power and manipulation in
    implementation of the schedule as well as the apparently
    perverse handling of the process by the concerned persons or
D   the authorities involved, in collusion with the students or
    otherwise, that have rendered the entire admission process
    faulty and questionable before the courts. It is the admissions
    granted arbitrarily, discriminately or in a manner repugnant to
    the regulations dealing with the subject that have invited judicial
E   catechism. With the passage of time, the quantum of this
    litigation has increased manifold.

        3. Thus, it is both the need of the hour and the demand of
  justice that this Court clarifies its decision and states the
F principles with greater precision so as to ensure elimination of
  colourable abuse and arbitrary exercise of power in the process
  of selection and admission to these professional courses by
  all concerned.

       4. Therefore, in our view, though the present appeal arises
G from very simple facts, yet it raises questions of considerable
  importance and application. These questions are bound to
  arise repeatedly not only before this Court, but even before the
  High Courts. Therefore, it is imperative for us to formulate the
  questions and answer them in accordance with law.
H
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 885
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    5. The questions are :-                                           A

    a) Is there any. exception to the principle of strict adherence
    to the Rule of Merit for preference of courses and colleges
    regarding admission to such courses?

    b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of tho              B
    relevant academic year is a date which admits any
    exception?

    c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they
    can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit,       c
    fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules
    and regulations?

    d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned
    by the court before passing orders which may be more
    equitable, but still in strict compliance with the framework      D
    of regulations and judgments of this court governing the
    subject?

      6. The appellant cleared her Secondary examination
(medical stream) with 75% marks and was eligible for taking           E
medical entrance examination as she fulfilled the requisite
criteria to take that exam. Pt. B.D. Sharma University (for short
'the University') issued a notification/advertisement for the
entrance examination for MBBS, BDS and BAMS to be held
in the first week of May, 2011. The appellant applied for the         F
same in the Backward Class 'B' (for short 'BCB') and
dependent of Ex-Serviceman (ESM) category. Her application
was accepted and roll number was issued to her. The date of
the examination was fixed for 12th June, 2011 by the University.
The appellant was declared successful in the entrance                 G
examination having secured 832 marks. The appellant was at
serial number 13 of the ESM category. All concerned were
informed that the first counseling for allotment of seats was to
be held on 14th -15th July, 2011. In this counseling, the
appellant was not admitted to MBBS Course as she was lower            H
    886       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A    in merit. Consequently, she took admission in the BOS Course.
    on that very day. Thereafter, a declaration was made by the
     respondents that the second counseling for allotment of seats
    in the MBBS course would ba held on 20th September, 2011.
    The appellant again participated in the counseling but her name
B and roll number was not declared by the respondents for the
    said admissions. How~ver, when the list of allocation of seats
    was displayed, it came to light that though the appellant had
    not been admitted to the MBBS Course, candidates who
    ranked below her in the merit list, including the respondent no.3,
c . Vineeta Yadav, who had obtained 821 marks and was at serial
    number 14 of the ESM Category, had been given admission
    to the MBBS Course.

        7. On the above facts, the learned Single Judge of the
  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, observed
D that according to the respondents, the 'appellant left the
  counseling place' without appearing before the Counseling
  Board. Resultantly, her candidature was not considered for
  admission to the MBBS course under the ESM category and
  the candidate next in merit was given the admission. It was the
E opinion of the Court that it would be too far fetched to accept
  that the appellant, though was physically present at the time of
  taking of attendance, thumb impressions and photography, did
  not respond to the call for counseling at the relevant time.
  Further, the Court observed that no reason whatsoever could
F be seen for absence of the appellant at the relevant moment
  from the record before the Court. In view of the fact that the
  appellant had filed the writ petition within a week of the second
  counseling, the Court accepted the facts averred in the writ
  petition and directed the rE;lspondents to admit the appellant to
G the MBBS course while further directing that it would be open
  for the respondents to see that admission of other students
  lower in merit is not cancelled, if so permissible and possible
  under the relevant Rules.

          8. Upon appeal, the Division Bench of that Court upset the
H
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 887
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
judgment of the learned Single Judge and held as under:-              A
    "We find that such directions could not have been issued
    on the basis of possibilities. In view the process of
    counseling, we find that the writ petitioner herself has failed
    to appear before the counseling board at the relevant time.
    It is not that she has not got admission. She is pursuing         B
    BOS course at Rohtak whereas, the other two candidates
    are pursuing their courses at PGI Rohtak and Medical
    College Agroha. At this stage, to disturb the entire
    admission process would not in the interest of academics
    when there is no substantive allegation in respect of             C
    admission process."
     9. The Division Bench also noticed the contention of the
respondents that the appellant was a student of the same
college and other candidates were even outstation, thus it was
                                                                      0
possible that the appellant was not present when the call for
her name was made, may be due to her negligence or
carelessness.
     10. The Court also observed that since there was no
allegation of mala tides against any member of the Counseling         E
Board and there also being no allegations of misconduct .and
favouritism, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single
Judge was not sustainable in law.
     11. The moot question which falls for consideration of this
Court in view of the divergent views taken by the Single Judge        F
and the Division Bench of the High Court is whether the
decision of the learned Single Judge is based on inferences
or assumptions or whether it was a reasonable conclusion
which the Court could arrive at in view of the pleadings of the
parties and the relevant rules in force.                              G
     12. Notification for the second counseling was issued on
26th August, 2011". The second counseling was to be held for
admission to MBBS and BOS courses in Government Aided
Medical Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana on 20th
                                                                      H
    888        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A September, 2011 in the Office of the Director, Pandit B.D.
  Sharma University of Health Sciences, PGI, Rohtak, as per the
  schedule given therein.

          13. The notification inter alia also stated:-
B      Date             Re1;1orting Time      Categorv      Rank

       20.09.2011       8.00 AM.              General       01 to 704
                                              (Common
                                              Merit List)
c
                                              SC            01 to 65

                                              BCA           01 to 144

                                              BCB           01 to 150
D
                                              PH            01

                                              ESM           01 to 30

                                              FF            01
E
        14. In furtherance to this notification, there is no dispute to
  the fact that the appellant, who was at Sr. No. 13 of ESM
  category, had appeared befo~e the authorities and marked her
  attendance in the attendance sheet on 20th September, 2011.
F It is interesting to note that the same sheet had been signed
  by the candidates to mark their presence even on 15th July,
  2011, when the first counseling was held. The appellant had
  also signed on 15th July, 2011 and, as already noticed, was
  given admission to the BOS course.
G         15. Another important aspect which needs to be noticed
    at this stage is the original merit list which has been produced
    before us. This merit list relates to the date of first counseling,
    i.e., 15th July, 2011. According to the respondents, the
    appellant had been given admission to the BOS course but in
H
ASHA v. PT. B.O. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 889
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
this merit list the column for signature in front of her name is    A
empty. This document does not have any of the members of
the Board or any candidate specifying the date of this
counseling. Therefore, we would take it that this document is
dated and relates to the proceedings .of 15th July, 2011. If that
be so, it is difficult to understand as to how the appellant was    B
given admission to the BOS cours~ on 15th July, 2011 when
nothing is noted in front of her name. It does not even say,
whether she was given admission to MBBS or BOS course.
Interestingly, in the remark column, the members of the Board
have noted the candidates who have already been given
admission to a college or who were not interested in BOS
                                                                    c
course or who had vacated the seat of BOS. The merit list for
admission dated 20th September,· 2011 has not been placed
on record. There is no explanation available from the records
produced before us, as ~o why this has not been done. It has
also not been clarified in the affidavit filed on behalf of         0
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

      16. We may notice that in thewrit petition before the High
Court the appellant had specifically averred that slle was
present in the second counseling at the time of attendance and      E
even subsequent thereto. However, despite such presence, her
name and roll number were not declared by the respondents
for the purpose of admission to the MBBS course. However,
the list of successful candidates revealed that candidates of
merit lower to her had been admitted to the MBBS course.            F
According to her, she instantly raised her claim and even
submitted a representation upon the respondents but to no
avail. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the writ petition read as follows :

    "7. That the respondents have decided to take second
    counseling and the date for second counseling was fixed         G
    for 20.09.2011. The petitioner again participated in the
    second counseling but her name and roil number was
    again not declared by the respondents for the said
    admission in the MBBS course.
                                                                    H
    890       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         8. That after the date of second counseling, the petitioner
          was shocked to know that one Vinita Yadav daughter of
          Sh. Arvind KumarYadav Roll No. 126038 having the same
          category i.e. BCB-ESM and having 821 marks which is
          lower then the marks secured by the petitioner got
B         admission in MBBS Course conducted by the
          respondents. The petitioner has visited the office of the
          respondent just after getting the information that a
          candidate who is lower in merit/marks got admissioh in
          MBBS Course and requested the respondents that this is
c         totally illegal and discriminatory on the part of them that
          they are giving admission to a candidate who is having
          lesser marks than the petitioner but the respondents have
          not considered her genuine claim and legal rights and
          willfully ignored the request of the petitioner.
D         9. That the petitioner has not continuously visited the office
          of the respondents and raised her voice for her genuine
          claim for the admission in MBBS Course and she has
          specifically mentioned that a candidate having lesser
          marks as compared to the petitioner has got admission
E         in MBBS course but in vain. The petitioner submitted a
          representation before the respondents mentioning
          everything about the incident but the respondents have not
          considered her request. A true typed copy of the
          representation is attached herewith as ANNEXURE P-3."
F
        17. In the reply filed on merits by the respondents, these
    paragraphs were dealt with in a most casual manner and no
    specific denial was made. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the reply read
    as under:-
G         "7. That in reply to Para No. 7 of the petition averments
          made in Para No. 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions
          are reiterated here.

          8. That in reply to Para No. 8 of the petition it is submitted
H         that since the Petitioner left the counseling place without
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 891
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    appearing before the counseling board her candidature          A
    was not considered for admission to MBBS course under
    ESM category and the Respondent No. 3 who was next
    in merit than the Petitioner got the admission in MBBS
    course under ESM category. Averments made in Para No.
    3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions are also reiterated     B
    here.

    9. That Para No. 9 of the writ petition is wrong and denied.
    The Petitioner has never approached to the answering
    Respondents with regard to her admission in MBBS
    course after 2nd counseling as claimed in this para.           C
    However, in any case she is not entitled for admission to
    MBBS Course under ESM category in present
    circumstances in view of facts mentioned in Para No. 2, 3
    & 4 of the preliminary submissions."
                                                                   D
      18. From a bare reading of the reply rn·ed by the
respondents, it is clear that there is no specific denial of the .
above-noted averments made by the appellant. It is a settled
principle of the law of pleadings that an averment made by the
appellant is expected to be specifically denied by the replying E
party. If there is no specific denial, then such averment is
deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. In the
present case, it is evident that the above-noted averments in
the writ petition were relevant and material to the case. In fact,
the entire case of the appellant hinged on these three F
paragraphs of the writ petition. It was thus, expected of the
respondents to reply these averments specifically, in fact to
make a proper reference to the records relevant to these
paragraphs. In view of the omission on part of the respondents
to refer to any relevant records and failure to specifically deny G
the averments made by the appellant, we are of the considered
view that the appellant has been able to make out a case for
interference.

    19. Not only this, if the averments made in paragraph 9
are correct and the appellant had instantaneously raised her       H
    892       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A claim before the respondents, followed by making of the
  representation, we see no reason why the claim of the appellant
  could not be settled at that time or in any case in the subsequent
  counseling held on 30th September, 2011, where the appellant
  was admittedly present. The attendance sheet produced before
B us shows that the appellant was present on all the three days.
  Even the records produced by the respondents before the Court
  support the case of the appellant.

         20. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High
    Court without any undue delay and on 4th November, 2011, the
C   judgment by the court was passed in her favour. The cumulative ·
    effect of the above factual matrix, the pleadings of the parties
    and the expeditious manner in which the appellant had taken
    action before the authorities and then before the court and
    pursued her remedies, persuade the Court to believe that the
D   case of the appellant is truthful. The cases of the present kind
    are not required to be tested by us on the touchstone of
    stringent principles of burden of proof applicable to criminal
    jurisprudence. As already mentioned, it was the obligation of
    the respondents to specifically deny the averments made by the
E   appellant and to produce the relevant records to show that the
    stand taken by them is worthy of credence. Having failed to do
    so, they cannot shift the burden upon the appellant and expect
    this Court to believe that a student of the same college, would
    disappear at the relevant time of counseling after having
F   marked her presence at thP. counseling.

       21. It is not necessary for the appellant to plead and prove
  mala fides, misconduct or favouritism and nepotism on the part
  of the parties concerned. Failure to do the same could be an
G error, intentional or otherwise, but in either event, we see no
  reason why the appellant should be made to suffer despite
  being a candidate of higher merit.

       22. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the
  Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection
H has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 893
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR,                   J.J
are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It        A
will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly
notified by the states, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by
inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission.
There cannot be any circumstance where the Rule of merit can
be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is             B
evident that merit has been a casuality. It will be useful to refer
to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is
the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is
not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law.
Ref. Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr. [CA @                c
SLP(C) No. 27089 of 2011, decided on 8th May, 2012),
Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 13 SCC
464], Pradeep Jain v. UOI [1984 (3) SCC 654), Sharwan
Kumar and Others v. Director of Health Services and Another
[1993 Supp (1) SCC 632], Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP             D
[(1999) 7 SCC 120], Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumif
 Garg and Others [2005 (13) SCC 749], A/IMS Students' Union
 v. A/IMS and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 428].

      23. It is true that the notification dated 26th August, 2011
had clearly stated that the candidate should appear before the        E
second Counseling Board well in time along with all the original
documents and that the photograph and thumb impression of
the candidate would be taken at the time of the counseling. The
notification stated the reporting time as 8.00 a.m. The exact
time when the candidates of each category i.e. General, SC,           F
PH (MS), EMS and FF were to be present was nowhere
stated. In other words all candidates were required to be
present at 8.00 a.m .. It cannot be disputed that the appellant
was present at that time and undisputedly she had marked her
presence in the attendance register. She admittedly                   G
participated in the photography and taking of thumb
impressions held by the concerned authority. However, her
absence at the crucial time of counseling is the essence of
dispute in the present case.
                                                                      H
    894       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A      24. Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the
  authorities and the students both. The prescribed schedule is
  to be maintained stricto sensu by all the stakeholders because
  if one party adheres to the schedule and others do not or there
  is some kind of lack of communication or omission to make
B proper announcements and maintain proper records for such
  counseling, disastrous results can follow, of which the present
  case is an apt example.

         25. The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions
    relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student
C   depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every
    candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the
    course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate
    would prefer course of MBBS over BOS given the high-
    competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a
D   mark, the admission to course could vary. Higher the
    competition, greater is the duty on the part of the concerned
    authorities to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and
    fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a
    candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate
E   course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious
    of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome
    task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for
    compromising merit. The concerned authorities are expected
    to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair
F   and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant
    rules and regulations.

        26. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been
  a matter of controversy before the courts. The courts have
G consistently taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like
  the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the
  concerned authorities should adhere to it and should in no
  circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion, gives
  rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardizes the interest and future
  of the students. Secondly, which is more serious, is that such
H
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 895
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
action would be ex- facie in violation of the orders of the court,   A
and therefore, would invite wrath of the courts under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard,
we may appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in the
cases of Priya Gupta (supra), State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar
Sinha & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624), Medical Council of India            B
v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258), GSF Medical and
Paramedical Association v. Association of Management of
Self Financing Technical Institutes and Anr. [2003 (12) SCC
414), Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab and Others
[(2010) 12 sec 167J.
                                                                     c
     27. The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the
regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are statutorily
having the force of law and are binding on all the concerned
parties. Various aspects of the admission process as of now          D
are covered either by the respective notifications issued by the
State Governments, prospectus issued by the colleges and, in
any case, by the regulations framed by the Medical Council of
India. There is no reason why every act of the authorities be
not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and         E
why due records thereof be not maintained.

     28. This proposition of law or this issue is no more res
integra and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various
judgments which may usefully be referred at this stage. Ref.
                                                                     F
State of M.P. v. Gopa/ D. Tirthani and Others [(2003) 7 SCC
83], State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital
and Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 3006], Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of
Maharashtra and Another [(2004) 11 SCC 755], Chowdhury
Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others. G
[(2011) 3 SCC 617], Harish Verma and Others v. Ajay
Srivastava and Another [(2003) 8 SCC 69].

     29. In the prospectus issued by the respondents, Chapter
9 dealt with the method of selection and admission. Clause 3.1
stated that it was mandatory for the qualified candidates to         H
    896       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A appear before the Counseling Board in person. No relaxation
  was to be given to the candidates who were unable to appear
  before the Counseling Board on the fixed dates. Further, it was
  stated in the prospectus that at the time of the counseling, the
  candidates would be required to exercise their choice for the
B institution and the course. The allotment of the seats would be
  made according to the merit and preference exercised by the
  candidates at the time of counseling. During the subsequent
  counseling the Course/Institution would be allotted as per the
  merit of the candidates depending on the availability of seats.
c         30. All these clauses are in accordance with the regulations
    framed by the Medical Council of India or the notifications
    issued by the concerned State Government. Relaxation of the
    Rule of Merit for reason of non-appearance is not permissible.
    In the present case, there is no disputeifiat the appellant was
D   present at the place and on the date of the second counseling
    but the dispute relates to her absence at the particular time
    when her name was called out for the purpose of counseling.
    As far as this issue is concerned, we have already expressed
    the opinion that there is no substance in the defence taken by
E   the respondents and the appellant should be entitled to the relief
    prayed for. However, the question that immediately follows is
    whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th
    September of the concerned academic year, that being the last
    date for admissions. The respondents before us have argued
F   with some vehemence that it will amount to a mid-term
    admission which is impermissible, will result in indiscipline and
    will cause prejudice to other candidates. Reliance has been
    placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of
    India v. Madhu Singh and Others [(2002) 7 SCC 258), Ms.
G   Neelu Arora and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2003)
    3 SCC 366), Aman Deep. Jaswal v. State of Punjab and
    Others [(2006) 9 SCC 597], •Medical Council of India v. Naina
     Verma .and Others [(2005) 12 SCC 626), Mridul Dhar and
    Another v Union of India and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 65),
H   Medical Council of India v Madhu Singh and Others [(2002)
ASHA v. PT. 8.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 897
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

7 sec 258].                                                              A

        31. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off
 date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-
 off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is
  attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for
                                                                         8
  arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to
  operate as a bar to admission to such students 'particularly
  when .it would result in complete ruining of the professional
  career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to
  answer. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and
  she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as                C
  possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date
  cannot be used as a teGhnical instrument or tool to deny
  admission to a meritorious students. The rule of merit stands
  completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The
  appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It          D
  cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower
  to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course.
  The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students wno
  had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already
  been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS                   E
  course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the
  appellant be denied admission. Though there can be rarest of
  rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may
  have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date
  of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first            F
  return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the
  candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies
  expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part
  of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules,
  regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant       G
  of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to
  equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be
  completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to
. the candidate. [Refer Arti Sapru and Others v. State of J & K              I
  and Others [(1981) 2 SCC 484]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director              H
             898       $URREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R


         A   General Health Services {-(1994) 2 SCC 370]; and AraVihd
             Kumar Kankane v. State of!UP and Oth'ers [(2001) 8 $CC
             355].

                 32. We must hasten to add at this stage that even if th~se
         B conditions are satisfied, still, the court woula be called upon to
           decide whether the relief should or should not be granted Clnd,
           if granted, should it be with or without compensation.

                   33. This brings us to the last phase of this case as to what
             relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to. Having, returned a
         C   finding on merits in favour of the appellant, tt\e Court has to
             grant relief to the appellant even, if necessary, by moulding the
             relief appropriately and in accordance with law. This Court must
             do complete justice between the parties, particularly, where the
             legitimate right of the appellant stands frustrated because of
         D   inaction or inappropriate action on the part of th~ coneerried
             respondents. In fact, normally keeping in view the factual matrix
             of this case, we would have directed the admission of the
             appellant to the MBBS course in the academic year 2011-2012
             and would further have directed the respondents to pay
         E   compensation to the appellant towards the mental agony and
             expense of litigation and the valuable period of her life that
             stands wasted for failure on the part of the respondents to
             adhere to the proper procedure of selection and admission
             process. May be the Court would have gretnted this relief
         F   subject to some further conditions. However, we are unable to
             grant this relief to the appellant in its totality for reason of.her
             own doing. She has completely faulted in pursuing her
             academic course in accordance with the Rules and fike a
             diligent student should do. In the reply filed on behalf of·
             respondent Nos.1 and 2, it has been stated that as per the
         G   Dental Council of India Norms, minimum required attendance
             is 75 per cent in Theory as well as in Practical of each subject
             individually for issuance of roll numbers in th~ BO'S course.
             Undoubtedly, the appellant was admitted to the BOS course
             and she was expected to complete her academic course in
         H

.   -,
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 899
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
terms of the Norms of Dental Council of India. It is also not            A
disputed before us aqd, in fact, was confirmed to us on behalf
of the Medical Council. of India and the respondent University
that the course for the first year of both, BOS and MBBS, is
more or less the same. Except one paper of Anatomy, rest of
the subjects and papers are more or less ~imilar particularly            B
for the first six months. If the appellant had pursued the BOS
course to which she was admitted diligently ahd had attended
all the lectures, she might have been eligible to pursue her
MBBS course in continuation thereto. We are not recording any
finding in this behalf as, in our opinion, the appellant is not          c
entitled to this particular relief, as already indicated, and Jor the
same she has to blame nor:ie else but herself.
     34. In the reply, the respondents have specifically explainec;I
by the figures on record that the appellant had attended only
28 per cent to 42 per cent lectures (minimum being 28% and               D
maximum 42%) instead of the required 75 per cent and as such
she has not even pursued her BOS course properly. The table
given in the reply reads as under :

 S.No. Name of Deptt.             Practical              Theory          E
                            Leet. Lee. %age Leet Lee. %age
                            Deliv. Attnd.   Del iv Attnd.

  1.      Prosthodontics    95     22         23% Nil    Nil       Nil
                                                                         F
  2.      Dental Anatomy 93        31         33% 95     28        29%
  3.      Dental Material   Nil    Nil        Nil   35   13        37%
  4.      Anatomy           125    39         31% 86     25        29%
  5.      Physiology        30     09         30% 94     27    .
                                                                   28%   G
  6.      Biochemistry      32     12         37% 59     25        42%

       35. From the above. data, it is clear that the appellant ha$
miserably failed to pursue her BOS course in accordance with             H
    900        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A Rules and, thus, she has not fulfilled even the pre-requisites for
  MBBS course, assuming that the BOS and MBBS courses are
  similar for the first six months. In these circumstances and
  finding that the appellant is at fault to this limited extent, we are
  of the considered view that the only relief the appellant can be
B granted in the present appeal is a direction to the respondents
  to give the appellant admission to the MBBS course not in the
  academic year 2011-12 bµt in the current academic year i.e.
  2012-2013, that too; subject to the condition that she will pursue
  her MBBS course right from the beginning without any
c advantage of her course in the BOS. If any examinations have
  been held in the meanwhile, it shall be deemed that she had
  not appeared in those examinations and be treated as such
  for all intent and purpose. While giving her admission to the
  MBBS course, preferably and if it is permissible, admission of
0 none of the other candidates to the MBBS course may be
  disturbed. If for whatever reasons, it is not possible to do so,
  in that event, the candidate last in the merit who has been
  granted admission to the MBBS course shall be transferred to
  the BDS course and appellant shall be admitted to the MBBS
  course. We also direct that such candidate would not be
E required to commence'her/his BOS course from the beginning
  provid,ed the candidate has satisfied the attendance
  requirements of the Dental Council of India.

        36. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed
F   by us in the opening part of this judgment.

    ANSWERS

          a)    The rule of merit for preference of courses and
                colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule
G               and all stakeholders and concerned authorities are
                required to follow this rule strictly and without demur.

          b)    30th September is undoubtedly the last date by
                which the admitted students should report to their
H               respective colleges without fail. In the normal
~SHA v.PT. S:D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 901
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
          course, the admissions must close by holding of             A
          second counseling by 15th September of the
          relevant academic year [in terms of the decision of
          this Court in Priya Gupta (supra)]. Thereafter, only
          in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal
          discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing                 B
          emergency, ~dmission may be permissible but
          such power may prefe.rably be exercised by the
          courts. Further, it will be in th'eI rarest of rare cases
          and where the, ends of justice1would be subverted
          or the process of law would stand frustrated that the       C
          courts would exercise their extra-ordinary
          jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses
          after the deadline of 30th September, of the current
          academic year. This, however, can c;mly be done if
          the conditions stated by this Court in the case of          o'
          Priya Gupta (supra) and this judgment are found to
          be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons
          therefor are recorded by the court of competent
          jurisdiction.

    c) & d) Wherever the court finds that action of the               E
         authorities has been•arbitrary, contrary to the
         judgments of this Court and violative of the Rules,
         regulations and conditions of the prospectus,
         causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the
         Court shall award compensation to such students              F
         as well as direct initiation of disciplinary action
         against the erring officers/officials. The court shall
         a.lso ensure that the proceedings under the
         Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against
         the erring authorities irrespective of their stature         G
         and empowerment. ·

          Where the admissions given by the concerned
          authorities are found by the courts to be legally
          unsustainable and where there is no reason to
                                                                      H
    902         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A                permit the students to continue with the course, the
                 mere fact that such students have put in a year or
                 so into the academic course is not by itself a
                 ground to permit them to continue with the course.

       37. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have
8
  made to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta's case (supra) that
  the courts should avoid giving interim orders where admissions
  are the matter of dispute before the Court. Even in case where
  the candidates are permitted to continue with the courses, they
C should normally be not permitted to take further examinations
  of the professional cpurses. The students who pursue the
  cpurses under the orders of the Court would not be entitled to
  Claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it
  Weigh with the courts of competent jurisdiction.

D       38. Besides providing the above answers to the questions,
    we also issue the following directions to put the matters to rest
    beyond ambiguity and to ensure that the authorities act in
    accordance with law :

          (a)    From the records of this case, it is clear that two
E
                 different records are being maintained at the time
                 of counseling. Firstly, the attendance register and
                 thereafter photography and thumb impressions are
                 taken and, secondly, the Committee maintains a
                 record of the counseling where the students are
F                actually given a specific college/course of his/her
                ·preference. We direct that the second set of
                 records shall be maintained more accurately. It
                 shall not only contain the signatures of the
                 candidate and the Committee members· but also
G                the date and time when the candidate is given a
                 seat and it shall also be signed by the candidate
                 with the course clearly wri~en by the Committee and
                 signed by the candidate in the remarks column.

H         (b)    The essence of all the judgments dealing with this
ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 903
   SCIENCES & ORS. [SWATANT~R KUMAR, J.]
          issue is to n1..1rture di~cipline, fairness and A
          transparency in the selection and admission
          process and avoid prejudice to any of the stake~
          holders. Thus, while we expect the authorities to be
          perfect, fair and transparent in the discharge of their
          duties, we make it clear that the students who adopt s
          malpractices in collusion with the authorities or
          otherwise for seeking admissions and if their
          admissions are found to be irregular or faulty in law
          by the courts, they shall normally be held
          responsible for paying compensation to such other C
          candidates who have been denied admission as a
          result of admission of the wrong candidates.

    (c)   The law requires adherence to a settted protocol in
          the process of selection and grant of admission.
          None should be able to circumvene or trounce this         D
          process, with or without an ulterior motive. The
          courts are duty bound to ensure that litigation
          relating to academic courses, particularly,
          professional courses should not be generated for
          want of will on the part of the stake holders to follow   E
          the process of selection and admission fairly,
          transparently and without exploitation.

    (d)   Keeping in mind the hard reality that there are
          number of petitions filed in each High Court of the
                                                                    F
          country, on the one hand challenging the
          admissions on varied grounds while, on the other,
          praying for grant of admission on merit to the
          respective professional courses of MBBS/BDS, the
          Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the career       G
          of the meritorious youth is at stake. These are
          matters relating to adherence to the rule of merit
          and when its breach is complained of, the judiciary
          may be expected to deal with the said grievances
          preferentially and effectively. The diversity of our
                                                                    H
    904         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A                country and the fact that the larger population lives
                 in rural areas and there being demand for
                 consistent increase in the strength of qualified
                 medical practitioners, we are of the considered
                 view that such cases, at least as of now and
B                particularly for a specific period of the year require
                 higher priority in the heavy business of court cases.
                 We are not oblivious of the fact that the Hon'ble
                 Judges of the High Court are working under great
                 pressure and with some limitations. However, we
c                would still make a request to the Hon'ble Chief
                 Justices of the respective High Courts to direct
                 listing of all medical admission cases before one
                 Bench of the Court as far as possible and in
                 accordance with the Rules of that Court. It would
                 further be highly appreciable if the said Bench is
D                requested to deal with such cases within a definite
                 period, particularly during the period from July to
                 October of a particular year. We express a pious
                 hope that our request would weigh with the Hon'ble
                 Chief Justices of the respective High Courts as it
E                would greatly help .in serving the ends of justice as
                 well as the national interest.                    '

         39. For the reasons afore-recorded and with the directions
    as mentioned above, we direct the respondents to grant
F   admission to the appellant to the MBBS course in the current
    academic year subject to the condition that she will pursue her ·
    MBBS course right from its beginning and to the conditions
    afore-noticed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
    case, we award no costs.
G          Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    ~.P.                                        Appeal disposed of.