DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                        [2013] 9 S.C.R. 320


A             DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS.
                            v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7940 of 2013)
                      SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
B
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        EDUCATION:

c        Medical admissions - Admission to PG Medical
    Courses - Weightage to in service candidates - Clarificatory
    order by High Court in review petition, without disturbing the
    already allocated seats - Held: On facts, since the order does
    not deprive the appellants in getting admission into their
0   preferred colleges or subjects, and they have already been
    admitted into various colleges and counseling is also over,
    it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the
    admissions of appellants or contesting respondents - Legal
    questions left open.

E       /mpleadment:

        Medical admissions - Application for impleadment -
    Significance of time limit - Explained - Delay!Laches.

         In the matter of quota of general category and in-
F
    service candidates for admission to PG Medical courses,
    the instant appeal was filed against the clarificatory order
    of the High Court to the effect that already allocated seats
    in the general category are not to be disturbed but
    whatever further seats remain vacant and/or are spill over
G   from 60% quota, the RMOs would also compete, with the
    only difference that there would be weightage given to
    them as per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of India
    Regulations.

H                                320
 DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS. v. STATE OF 321
                 PUNJAB
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court.                             A

     HELD: 1.0n facts, leaving the legal questions open,
the order passed by the High Court in the review
application does not deprive the appellants of their right
to get admission into their preferred colleges or favourite
                                                                  8
subjects, and since the appellants and the RMOs have
already been admitted to the various colleges and the
counseling is also over, it would not be in the interest of
justice to disturb the admission of the appellants or the
contesting respondents. [para 6) [324-B-D]
                                                                  c
     2. In academic matters, the time limit has to be strictly
viewed. In the instant case, the applicants should have
approached the Court at the earliest opportunity. In the
circumstances, there is no reason to entertain the
impleadment application, which was filed belatedly. [para D
7) [324-D-E]

     Satyaprata sahoo & ors . . vs. State of orissa & ors. 2012
(10) SCR 204 = 2012 (8) sec 203 - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:                          E
    2012 (10) SCR 204         relied on             para 4

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7940 of 2013.
                                                                  F
    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2013 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RA No.
89 of 2013 in LPA No. 1070 of 2013 in CWP No. 11206 of
2013.
                                                                  G
    Shyam Divan, Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati for the
Appellants.

     P.S. Patwalia, Deepak Sibal, V. Shyamohan, Rayjith Mark,
Uttara Babbar, Jagajit Singh Chhabra, Ashutosh K. Singh,
                                                                  H
    322      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Sanjay Bansal, Reepak Kansai, G.K. Bansal, Arvind Kr.
    Sharma, Saurabh Mishra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
         2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the
    Punjab & Haryana High Court in Review Application No.89 of
    2013 in LPA No.1070 of2013, by which the Division Bench of
    the High Court clarified its earlier order dated 25. 7.2013 stating
C   as follows :-

          "We thus clarify that there has not to be disturbance of the
          already allocated seats in the general category but
          whatever further seats remain vacant and/or are spill over
          from 60% quota, the RMOs will also compete with the only
D
          difference that there would be weightage given to them as
          per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of India Regulations."

         3. Appellants, who are nine in number and not made
    parties to the Review Petition, have questioned the order of the
E   High Court on the following questions of law :-

          1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble High
          Court is sustainable in the teeth of law laid down by this
          Hon'ble Court in CA No.5705-5706 of 2012 Satyabrata
          Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. vide judgment
F
          dated 03.08.2012 since, in the said case this Hon'ble
          Court was pleased to quash the clause of prospectus (to
          the extent that it provided for weightage to in-service
                                                       •
          candidates inspite of there being a reservation of seats
          for them to the extent of 50%) and held it to be ultra vires?
G
          II. Whether the Hon'ble High Court could have expanded
          the scope of a writ petition while deciding a Review
          Application by creating a new category of candidates of
          RMOs by giving additional weightage of marks to them on
H
 DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS. v. STATE OF 323
       PUNJAB [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     the basis of their tenure of service within 40% open            A
     category seats for MD Course admissions?

     Ill. Whether the Hon'ble High Court could have framed a
     new policy/new criteria without there being any provisions
     for the same either in the prospectus issued by Baba            B
     Farid University and/or in the Regulations issued by
     Medical Council of India, and which is contrary to the law
     laid down by this Hon'ble Court?

     IV. Whether the Hon'ble High Court could have laid down
     new rules for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses C
     midway i.e. before the second counselling for the State of
     Punjab was to take place?

      4. Shri Shyam Devan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Appellants, submitted that the High Court was not D
justified in granting the substantial reliefs in a review application
filed in a dismissed appeal, confirming the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned
senior counsel submitted that the Division Bench of the High
Court has created a new category of in-service candidates, and E
granted reservation carving out the same for the 40% quota
earmarked for general category candidates for admission to
MD course. At best they could seek a claim only for the 60%
quota earmarked for in-service candidates and that itself is a
moot question. The learned senior counsel, in support of his
contention placed reliance on the iudgment of this Court in F
 Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2012) 8
sec 203. Learned senior counsel submitted that the RMOs
cannot infiltrate into the 40% quota earmarked for the general
category candidates depriving appellants of their choice of
subject or college.                                                   G

      5. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing
 for the RMOs submitted that the impugned order in no way
 deprives admission of the appellants, nor takes away their
.choice of subject or the college. Learned senior counsel tried      H
    324     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   to demonstrate the same by producing a chart which throws
    considerable light on his plea. Shri Patwalia, learned senior
    counsel also submitted that even on merits the appellants have
    no case nor on equity.

         6. We are of the view that the order passed by the High
B
    Court in the review application, as a matter of fact does not
    deprive the right of the appellants in getting admission into their
    preferred colleges or favourite subjects, even though we have
    our own reservation about the manner in which the High Court
C   has entertained the review petition and granted the reliefs. But
    since the rights of the appellants are not adversely affected and
    the appellants and the RMOs have already been admitted to
    the various colleges and the counselling is also over, it would
    not be in the interest of justice to disturb the admission of the
    appellants or the contesting respondents.
D
        7. We also find no reason to entertain the application for
    impleadment, which was filed after a period of one month from
    the date of passing of the impugned order. In academic
    matters, the time limit has to be strictly viewed and against the
E   impugned order, candidates, if had any grievance, ought to
    have approached this Court at the earliest opportunity, which
    they did not. In such circumstances, we find no reason to
    entertain the lmpleadment Application.

         8. We, however, do not propose to give our stamp of
F   approval to the clarification issued by the High Court in the
    review application, which we order, would be restricted to the
    facts of this case. Therefore, all legal questions arising out of
    that order are left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

G        9. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed, so also
    application for impleadment. There shall be no order as to
    costs.

    R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.
H