Supreme Court of India
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusSAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 1136
- Decided
- 21 October 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
Admissions made after the prescribed deadline and without required intimation are illegal; the cancellation of those admissions stands.
Summary
The National Board of Examination conducted NEET MDS 2018 and the State of Chhattisgarh was to fill postgraduate dental seats through a three‑stage counselling process ending on 31 May 2018 at 4:30 p.m. After the mop‑up round, three seats remained vacant in private dental colleges, but the colleges admitted the original writ petitioners after the deadline and without intimating the Directorate, constituting "backdoor" admissions. The Directorate cancelled those admissions on 6 June 2018; the High Court stayed and later set aside the cancellation, allowing the students to continue their studies. The Dental Council of India appealed, arguing that the admissions violated the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017. The Supreme Court held that admissions made after the prescribed deadline and without required intimation are illegal and cannot be validated by sympathy or vacancy. Consequently, the Court restored the Directorate’s cancellation, dismissed the writ petitions and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether admissions granted by private dental colleges after the statutory deadline and without intimation to the Directorate are valid under the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017.
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing the cancellation of such admissions and permitting the students to continue their courses.
- Whether vacancy of seats on the last date of admission justifies extending the admission deadline or allowing mid‑term admissions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
NEET MDSpostgraduate dental admissionbackdoor admissioncounselling deadlineDentists Actvacant seatsillegal admissionSupreme Court
Judgment
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 975 975
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
SAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7611 of 2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022 B
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ]
Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules,
2017 – Dentists Act, 1948 – Dental Council of India – Postgraduate
Dental Course – Admission – The National Board of Examination
C
conducted NEET MDS 2018 for admission in various Postgraduate
Course in Dental Sciences – The result of the NEET MDS 2018 was
published on 31.01.2018 – A merit list was prepared for the State of
Chhattisgarh – Admissions in the Postgraduate Course in Dental
Sciences were to be made through counselling by the State
Government – The admission process was required to be completed D
on or before 31.05.2018 before 4:30 p.m. – As per the procedure,
after the first round of counselling, there was second round of
counselling and thereafter the mop up round of counselling – In
the instant case, the dispute was with respect to three Dental Colleges
– Directorate of Medical Education notified the vacant seats
E
including the vacant seats in the said three colleges on 29.05.2018
to be filled up in mop up round of counselling on the basis of
intimation provided by the private colleges including the said three
colleges – In the mop up round of counselling, the original writ
petitioners participated but could not secure admission on merits in
the respective colleges/institutions, in which, subsequently they got F
admissions through backdoor – Nothing is on record that any other
students were given any opportunity to apply for admissions in the
respective institutions/colleges for admission on the seats remained
vacant – It is not appreciable how the original writ petitioners came
to know that at 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the seats have remained
G
vacant in the institutions/colleges – The only inference can be that
the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students
got admissions illegally – Communication issued by the Directorate
annulling/cancelling the admission of the original writ petitioners
in the postgraduate course in the respective private institutions/
colleges is restored. H
975
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. The respective original writ petitioners were
granted admissions by the private institutions/colleges in the
postgraduate course illegally. Their admissions can be said to be
backdoor. The admissions in the postgraduate course were
B required to be made only through counselling by the Directorate
and the counselling was to be done with respect to number of
seats intimated by the concerned institutions/colleges. The
admissions in the concerned institutions/colleges were required
to be given/granted as per the merit only. As per the procedure
and regulations, if after the first counselling the seats remained
C vacant, there shall be second round of counselling and then mop
up counselling to fill up the vacant seats intimated. Every time
the institutions/colleges were required to intimate the Directorate
the particulars about the vacant seats and those vacant seats were
required to be filled in on merits by the Directorate through
D counselling. The last date and the time for granting admission
was 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018. In the present case, in the mop up
round of counselling, the original writ petitioners did participate
but could not secure admission on merits in the respective
colleges/institutions in which subsequently they got admissions
through backdoor. If the original writ petitioners were so much
E meritorious, they would have got admissions in the respective
colleges/institutions on merits through mop up round conducted
by the Directorate. During the mop up round, they could not get
admissions in the respective private institutions/colleges, that
itself is suggestive that they were not having merit to get
F admissions in the institutions/colleges in which subsequently they
got admissions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the private
institutions and even the students that they were meritorious
students and the merit is not given go bye cannot be accepted.
[Para 8][982-E-H; 983-A-B]
G 2. In the present case, though required, the private
institutions/colleges did not intimate to the Directorate/State
Government with respect to seats remained vacant. Without any
intimation to the Directorate/State Government, the private
institutions/colleges unilaterally granted admission to the original
writ petitioners on 31.05.2018 after 4:30 p.m., which was not
H
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 977
OTHERS
permissible at all. No admission could have been given after 4:30 A
p.m. on 31.05.2018. It is required to be noted that nothing is on
record that any other students were given any opportunity to
apply for admissions in the respective institutions/colleges for
admission on the seats remained vacant. It is not appreciable
how the original writ petitioners came to know that at 4:30 p.m.
B
on 31.05.2018, the seats have remained vacant in the institutions/
colleges. The only inference can be that the institutions and the
students were hands in glove and the students got admissions
illegally. Even if on the last date of admission, seats remained
vacant was no ground by the institutions/colleges to grant
admissions unilaterally and that too without intimating the vacant C
seats to the Directorate. [Paras 9 and 10][983-C-E; 985-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7611 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 20.08.2018 of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPC No.1649 of 2018. D
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7613 and 7612 of 2022.
Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Mitushi
Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant. E
Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv., Kaustubh Anshuraj, M. M. Singh, S. K.
Pal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Sumeer Sodhi, Devashish Tiwari, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 1649/2018 and other allied
writ petitions, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions G
preferred by the respondents – students and has quashed and set aside
the communication dated 6.6.2018 of the State of Chhattisgarh annulling/
cancelling the admissions of the respective respondents – original writ
petitioners in the Postgraduate Dental Course, the Dental Council of
India has preferred the present appeals.
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A 2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:
The National Board of Examination conducted NEET MDS 2018
for admission in various Postgraduate Course in Dental Sciences. The
result of the NEET MDS 2018 was published on 31.01.2018. A merit list
B was prepared for the State of Chhattisgarh. The admissions in the
Postgraduate Course in Dental Sciences were to be made through
counselling by the State Government. The admission process was required
to be completed on or before 31.05.2018 before 4:30 p.m.
2.1 As per the procedure and the relevant rules and regulations,
C namely, Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules,
2017 and the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 and MDS Course
Regulations, 2017, the particulars of the seats were required to be
intimated to the State Government and Directorate of Medical Education,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh and as observed hereinabove the admissions were
to be given on merits on the basis of the counselling made by the State
D Government. As per the procedure, after the first round of counselling,
there shall be second round of counselling and thereafter the mop up
round of counselling. In the present case, the dispute is with respect to
three Dental Colleges, namely, New Horizon Dental College Research
Institute, Bilaspur (for short, ‘New Horizon College’), Maitri College of
E Dentistry and Research (for short, ‘Maitri College’), Anjora Durg and
Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai (for short,
‘Rungta College’). New Horizon College intimated seven seats to be
included in the mop up round, Maitri College intimated nine seats to be
included in the mop up round and Rungta College intimated fifteen seats
to be included in the mop up round.
F
2.2 The Directorate of Medical Education notified the vacant seats
including the vacant seats in the aforesaid three colleges on 29.05.2018
to be filled up in mop up round of counselling on the basis of intimation
provided by the private colleges including the above three colleges. The
vacant seats of the above three colleges were notified in the notice by
G the Directorate of Medical Education.
2.3 74 candidates appeared for mop up round of counselling
before the Directorate on 30.05.2018 including the original writ
petitioners, seven in numbers. Out of 74 candidates, 43 candidates
were allotted seats. In the mop up round after counselling, New Horizon
H College was allotted seven seats against seven vacant seats available
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 979
OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
in the college. Maitri College was allotted nine students against nine A
vacant seats available in the college and Rungta College was allotted
thirteen students against fifteen seats available in the college and two
seats remained vacant.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that total number of vacant
seats for all five colleges were 46 and out of 46, 43 seats were allotted B
to students in various colleges including the above three colleges. Out of
allotment of 43 seats, 35 candidates joined and 8 seats remained vacant
due to non-joining. Thus, only three seats remained unallotted after mop
up round of counselling. One seat remained vacant in Chhattisgarh Dental
College and two seats remained vacant in Rungta College. The
Directorate, on receiving the information of the above vacant seats from C
the colleges, immediately sent list of 30 students for filling three vacant
seats in the ratio of 1:10 according to merit list of the students to the
principal of two Dental Colleges where seats were unallotted.
2.4 The names of the respondents – original writ petitioners were
not included in the list of thirty-five candidates as they were not allotted D
seats by the Directorate. It appears that the students allotted to the
above three colleges, who were allotted seats after the mop up round of
counselling, some of them did not join the course and those seats remained
vacant on 31.05.2018. Without any intimation to the Directorate about
the vacant seats remained vacant on 31.05.2018, the above three colleges E
unilaterally granted admission to the original writ petitioners on 31.05.2018
after 4:30 p.m. That thereafter the above colleges intimated the
Directorate on 31.05.2018, after the admissions were granted to the
original writ petitioners, that they had filled the vacant seats.
2.5 Having come to know about the above illegality in giving F
admission to the original writ petitioners without any intimation and/or
without disclosing the vacant seats to the State Government, vide
communication dated 6.6.2018, the Directorate/State Government
cancelled the admissions given to the original writ petitioners.
Communication dated 6.6.2018 annulling/cancelling the admission of the
original writ petitioners, which were illegally given on 31.05.2018 after G
4:30 p.m., was the subject matter of writ petitions before the High Court.
The High Court by way of interim order stayed communication dated
6.6.2018 and directed to continue the admission of the original writ
petitioners. That thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has allowed the writ petitions by quashing and setting aside H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A the communication dated 6.6.2018 and has directed that the respective
writ petitioners will be allowed to complete their course by observing in
paragraph 21 as under:
“This Court can only observe that may be in absence of proper
communication or some vaccum subsisting in the directive or the
B rules the same has been utilised or exploited by the colleges in
question but since these admissions have already been granted
and courses have begun and when these writ applications were
initially taken up, interim protection was granted in favour of the
petitioners, holding that there was a strong prima facie case in
their favour in continuance of their education in the respective
C colleges, this Court holds in favour of the petitioners.”
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Dental Council of
India has preferred the present appeals.
D 3. Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Dental Council of India has vehemently submitted that in the present
case the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside
communication dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Directorate/State
Government annulling/cancelling the admission of the private respondents
herein – original writ petitioners.
E
3.1 It is submitted that by quashing and setting aside communication
dated 6.6.2018 protecting the admission of the respondents, the High
Court has perpetuated the illegality committed by the concerned
institutions/colleges in admitting the students/original writ petitioners
illegally.
F
3.2 It is submitted that the respective original writ petitioners were
admitted in the respective private institutions/colleges de hors the policy,
rules, regulations and the procedure to be followed for the purpose of
admission in postgraduate. It is submitted that the admissions were
required to be given only through the counselling by the Directorate. It is
G submitted that in the present case, without intimating the State
Government/Directorate about the vacant seats, unilaterally the private
institutions/colleges granted admissions to the original writ petitioners by
backdoor. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has materially
erred in directing that the original writ petitions be allowed to complete
their course.
H
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 981
OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3.3 It is submitted that as soon as the State Government/ A
Directorate came to know about such an illegality and the illegal
admissions granted by the private institutions/colleges, immediately the
State Government acted and cancelled/annulled the admissions vide
communication dated 6.6.2018. It is submitted that thereafter the
respective original writ petitioners continued to study pursuant to the
B
interim order passed by the High Court. It is submitted that continuation
of the course/study of the original writ petitioners pursuant to the interim
order passed by the High Court cannot be a ground to allow them to
continue to complete their course subsequently.
3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India C
and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 627 and the recent decision of this
Court in the case of Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical
Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma & Others (Civil Appeal
Nos. 7533-7534/2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.3507-3508/2020, decided on 17.10.2022), it is prayed to allow D
the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has adopted
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Dental Council of India and prayed to allow the present appeals and
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the
E
High Court directing the original writ petitioners to continue/complete
their postgraduate course, who were given admissions illegally by the
private institutions/colleges.
5. Shri Yatinder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the private institutions/colleges has submitted that as by
31.05.2018 at 4:30 p.m., the seats remained vacant and therefore the F
private institutions granted admissions to the students so as to see that
the seats are not wasted.
5.1 It is submitted that all the students who were granted admissions
were all meritorious students and therefore the merits have not been
given go bye. G
5.2 It is submitted that in fact the particulars of the vacant sears
were displayed and only thereafter admissions were given.
5.3 It is submitted that now as the students have completed their
course, they may be permitted to complete their course and the results
be declared. H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ
petitioners – students has also prayed to permit them to complete their
course and declare their results by submitting that by now they have
already completed their course.
7. In rejoinder and on the submission made on behalf of the private
B institutions/colleges that the respective students – original writ petitioners
were granted admission on the seats remained vacant on 31.05.2018 at
4:30 p.m. and therefore to see that the seats are not wasted, the admissions
were given, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Dental Council of India that merely because the seats
remained vacant cannot be a ground to grant admissions de hors and
C without following the due procedure and even go bye to merits. Reliance
is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Astha Goel and
Others v. The Medical Counselling Committee & Others (Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 409 of 2022 and other connected petitions,
decided on 10.06.2022), by which it is observed and held that even
D after the seats remained vacant, the deadline to grant admissions in
postgraduate cannot be extended.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respective original
E writ petitioners were granted admissions by the private institutions/
colleges in the postgraduate course illegally. Their admissions can be
said to be backdoor. The admissions in the postgraduate course were
required to be made only through counselling by the Directorate and
the counselling was to be done with respect to number of seats intimated
F by the concerned institutions/colleges. The admissions in the concerned
institutions/colleges were required to be given/granted as per the merit
only. As per the procedure and regulations, if after the first counselling
the seats remained vacant, there shall be second round of counselling
and then mop up counselling to fill up the vacant seats intimated. Every
time the institutions/colleges were required to intimate the Directorate
G the particulars about the vacant seats and those vacant seats were
required to be filled in on merits by the Directorate through counselling.
The last date and the time for granting admission was 4:30 p.m. on
31.05.2018. In the present case, in the mop up round of counselling,
the original writ petitioners did participate but could not secure admission
H on merits in the respective colleges/institutions in which subsequently
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 983
OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
they got admissions through backdoor. If the original writ petitioners A
were so much meritorious, they would have got admissions in the
respective colleges/institutions on merits through mop up round
conducted by the Directorate. During the mop up round, they could
not get admissions in the respective private institutions/colleges, that
itself is suggestive that they were not having merit to get admissions in
B
the institutions/colleges in which subsequently they got admissions.
Therefore, the submission on behalf of the private institutions and even
the students that they were meritorious students and the merit is not
given go bye cannot be accepted.
9. In the present case, though required, the private institutions/ C
colleges did not intimate to the Directorate/State Government with respect
to seats remained vacant. Without any intimation to the Directorate/
State Government, the private institutions/colleges unilaterally granted
admission to the original writ petitioners on 31.05.2018 after 4:30 p.m.,
which was not permissible at all. No admission could have been given
after 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018. It is required to be noted that nothing is on D
record that any other students were given any opportunity to apply for
admissions in the respective institutions/colleges for admission on the
seats remained vacant. It is not appreciable how the original writ
petitioners came to know that at 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the seats have
remained vacant in the institutions/colleges. The only inference can be E
that the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students
got admissions illegally.
10. The submission on behalf of the institutions that the seats
remained vacant and therefore the same could have been wasted and
therefore admissions were given cannot be accepted. In the case of Dr. F
Astha Goel (supra), it is observed and held that even after some seats
remain vacant on the last date of admissions, the date for admissions
cannot be extended. In the said decision, this Court considered its earlier
decisions in the case of Supreet Batra and Others v. Union of India
and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 370 and in the case of Education Promotion
Society for India v. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCC 38. In paragraphs G
10.2 and 10.3, it is observed and held as under:
“10.2 At this stage, the decisions of this Court in the case of Supreet
Batra and Ors. (supra) and Education Promotion Society for India
and Anr. (supra) are required to be referred to.
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A In the case of Supreet Batra and Ors. (supra), it is observed and
held that even if some seats remain vacant, the students cannot
be admitted mid-term. In paragraph 7, it is observed and held as
under: -
“7. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders
B of this Court and the manner in which it has to be worked out
is also indicated therein, we do not think that if in a particular
year there is any shortfall or a certain number of seats are not
filled up, the same should be done by adopting one more round
of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of
counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go
C
on altering the Scheme as and when seats are vacant. What is
to be borne in mind is that broad equality will have to be
achieved and not that it should result in any mathematical
exactitude. Out of about 1600 seats, if 200 seats are not filled
up for various reasons and such not filled-up seats were much
D less in the earlier years, we do not think it should result in the
third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then
there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats
falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it
will become endless until all the seats under the all-India quota
E are filled up. That is not the object of the Scheme formulated
by this Court. The object was to achieve a broad-based equality
as indicated by us at the outset and we do not think that any
steps have to 13 be taken for altering the Scheme. We have
taken identical view in the decision in Neelu Arora v. Union of
India [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and connected matters disposed of
F on 24-1- 2003. Moreover, this Court in Medical Council of
India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258] has taken the view
that there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that
would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical
education. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground
G for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be
telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats
of the subsequent year. If these aspects are borne in mind, we
do not think any reliefs as sought for by the petitioners can be
granted under these petitions. These writ petitions shall stand
dismissed.”
H
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 985
OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
10.3 In the case of Education Promotion Society for India and A
Anr. (supra), the writ petitioners like the petitioners in the present
case prayed for extension of time schedule and prayed for the
additional counselling. This Court negated the same. This Court
also took the note of the fact that every year large number of
non-clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors
B
do not want to do postgraduation in non-clinical subjects.
Thereafter, it is observed and held that merely because the seats
are lying vacant, is not a ground to grant extension of time and
grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. It is observed that
the schedule must be followed. While holding so, it is observed in
paragraph 6 as under: - C
“6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of
time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any
individual college or university but generally on the ground that
a large number of seats for the PG courses are lying 14 vacant.
It is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the D
affidavit filed by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed
universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant.
However, it is important to note that out of 603 seats lying
vacant only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority
(572) that is almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in non-
clinical subjects. There is no material on record to show as to E
what is the situation with regard to the remaining 400-500 seats.
This Court however can take judicial notice of the fact that
every year large number of non-clinical seats remain vacant
because many graduate doctors do not want to do
postgraduation in non-clinical subjects. Merely because the F
seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant
extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant
seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation
of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a
pandora’s box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule
and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time G
schedule will be defeated.”
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions,
even if on the last date of admission, seats remained vacant was no
ground by the institutions/colleges to grant admissions unilaterally
and that too without intimating the vacant seats to the Directorate. H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A 11. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the institutions/colleges
and the respective original writ petitioners to permit them to continue the
course and/or to declare their results as they have completed their studies/
course is concerned, the said prayer is required to be rejected outright.
It is required to be noted that all the original writ petitioners continued
their studies/course pursuant to the interim order passed by the High
B
Court. So far as the State is concerned, the State promptly took a decision
to annul/cancel their admissions on the ground that their admissions were
absolutely illegal. As such, the High Court ought not have passed such
an interim order directing to grant admissions or continue with admission/
course. The interim order passed by the High Court is not legally
C sustainable. As per the settled position of law, nobody can be permitted
to take the advantage of the order passed by the Courts.
11.1 Even otherwise, once it is found that the respective original
writ petitioners were granted admissions illegally and their admissions
are backdoor, thereafter to allow them to continue their course shall be
D perpetuating the illegality. Similar prayers have been consistently denied
by this Court in catena of decisions (See Abdul Ahad (supra) & Dr.
Astha Goel (supra)). In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v.
Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401, in paragraph 7, it is observed
and held as under:
E “7. Shri Gambhir is right in his submission. We are afraid that this
kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by
sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone.
From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic
matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades
as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism
F of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of
academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious
impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without
regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters
relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot
be deferred or decided later when serious complications might
G
ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High
Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than
by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position.
Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not
embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their
H functions.”
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND 987
OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
11.2 Similar observations have been made by this Court in the A
case of K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264.
11.3 In the case of Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose,
(2008) 17 SCC 611, it is observed and held by this Court that the
misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the
rules. B
11.4 In the case of CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7
SCC 719, in paragraph 6, it is observed and held as under:
“6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the
practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to
appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the C
petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since
the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter
deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very
awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face
of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal
D
provisions…..”
12. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, the prayer on behalf of the institutions/students to allow them
to complete their course is not required to be accepted. As observed
hereinabove, the undue sympathy would lead to perpetuating the illegality
and giving premium to the students who got admissions illegally. E
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court directing
the admissions of the respective original writ petitioners and quashing
and setting aside communication dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Directorate/
State Government annulling/cancelling the admissions of the original writ F
petitions is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside and is accordingly hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently,
the writ petitions preferred by the original writ petitioners stand dismissed
and communication dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Directorate annulling/
cancelling the admission of the original writ petitioners in the postgraduate
G
course in the respective private institutions/colleges is hereby restored.
14. The instant appeals are allowed accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA) H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NEET MDS"Sign in to search