# PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 5 S.C.R. 768
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/priya-gupta-v-state-of-chhatishgarh-ors-28349
- **Pages:** 66

## Headnote

EDUCA TIONIEDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
c
Medical and Dental College - Admission to MBBS
course - Tampering with the schedule specified under the
Regulations and judgments of the Supreme Court with clear
intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over
and above candidates of higher merit - Held: Adherence to
0 the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed schedule,
refraining from mid stream admission and adoption of
admission process that is transparent, non-exploitative and
fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme - From
time to time, Supreme Court has given directions in relation
E to the manner of announcement of details, results and
counseling for admission and its publication in newspaper -
Schedules prescribed have the force of law in as much as they
form part of the judgments of Supreme Court - No authority
whether Medical Council of India, Government of India, State
Government, University or selection bodies constituted at the
F college level for allotment of seat by way of counseling are
vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the
time schedule or the procedure of admission - There have
been irregularities in maintaining the prescribed Schedule
and that the fast few days of the declared schedule are
G primarily being utilized in an exploitative manner on account
of charging higher fees for securing admission and thereby
defeating the principle of admission on merit - Adverse
consequences of non-adherence to the time schedule stated
and directions issued - In the instant appeal, two vacant seats
H
768
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 769
were available on 30th September, 2006 - Appellants were
A
given admission on 30th September without effecting due
publicity - State Government cancelled their admission on the
ground that it was arbitrary and based on favouritism - High
Court rightly dismissed the writ petition by appellants - There
was nothing on record to show that all the candidates were
B
informed of counseling on the last day - Appellants were
stated to have been present in college and were given
admission - Appellant no.2 was daughter of Director of
medical education - From 23rd April 2006 to 29th September
2006, no record to show efforts to fill up vacant seats - Out of c
favouritism and arbitrariness, the appellants were given
admission by completing the entire admission process within
few hours on 30th September, 2006 - The entire exercise
smacked of arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory -
On peculiar facts and circumstances, though there is no legal 0
infirmity in judgment under appeal, but since by virtue of
interim orders, the appellants had completed four years of
studies during the High Cou11 decision, in order to do
complete justice within the ambit of Article 142 of the
Constitution, the appellants permitted to complete their E
professional courses subject to the condition that each one
of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to college, which amount
shall be utilized for developing th19 infrastructure in the college
- Initiation of proceedings directed under the Contempt of
Courts Act against various authorities - Report of the
Committee constituted to look into irregularity in admission
F
to the effect that the admission to appellants was on State
PMT merit was a mere eye-was/1 rather than a proper report
upon examining the entire matter in its proper perspective -
Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed
procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the
G
judgments of Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 141, 142 - Costs.
Recognition granted to medical or dental college priori
after 15th July of each year - Effect of
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
The appellants had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test
conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic
year 2006. The results were declared in July 2006.
Appellant No.1 secured general rank 1614 while appellant
No.2 secured genera

## Text

_Characters 0–39,758 of 124,155. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39758 for what follows._

A
B
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 768
PRIYA GUPTA
v.
STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012)
MAY 08, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
EDUCA TIONIEDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
c
Medical and Dental College - Admission to MBBS
course - Tampering with the schedule specified under the
Regulations and judgments of the Supreme Court with clear
intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over
and above candidates of higher merit - Held: Adherence to
0 the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed schedule,
refraining from mid stream admission and adoption of
admission process that is transparent, non-exploitative and
fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme - From
time to time, Supreme Court has given directions in relation
E to the manner of announcement of details, results and
counseling for admission and its publication in newspaper -
Schedules prescribed have the force of law in as much as they
form part of the judgments of Supreme Court - No authority
whether Medical Council of India, Government of India, State
Government, University or selection bodies constituted at the
F college level for allotment of seat by way of counseling are
vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the
time schedule or the procedure of admission - There have
been irregularities in maintaining the prescribed Schedule
and that the fast few days of the declared schedule are
G primarily being utilized in an exploitative manner on account
of charging higher fees for securing admission and thereby
defeating the principle of admission on merit - Adverse
consequences of non-adherence to the time schedule stated
and directions issued - In the instant appeal, two vacant seats
H
768
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 769
were available on 30th September, 2006 - Appellants were
A
given admission on 30th September without effecting due
publicity - State Government cancelled their admission on the
ground that it was arbitrary and based on favouritism - High
Court rightly dismissed the writ petition by appellants - There
was nothing on record to show that all the candidates were
B
informed of counseling on the last day - Appellants were
stated to have been present in college and were given
admission - Appellant no.2 was daughter of Director of
medical education - From 23rd April 2006 to 29th September
2006, no record to show efforts to fill up vacant seats - Out of c
favouritism and arbitrariness, the appellants were given
admission by completing the entire admission process within
few hours on 30th September, 2006 - The entire exercise
smacked of arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory -
On peculiar facts and circumstances, though there is no legal 0
infirmity in judgment under appeal, but since by virtue of
interim orders, the appellants had completed four years of
studies during the High Cou11 decision, in order to do
complete justice within the ambit of Article 142 of the
Constitution, the appellants permitted to complete their E
professional courses subject to the condition that each one
of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to college, which amount
shall be utilized for developing th19 infrastructure in the college
- Initiation of proceedings directed under the Contempt of
Courts Act against various authorities - Report of the
Committee constituted to look into irregularity in admission
F
to the effect that the admission to appellants was on State
PMT merit was a mere eye-was/1 rather than a proper report
upon examining the entire matter in its proper perspective -
Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed
procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the
G
judgments of Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 141, 142 - Costs.
Recognition granted to medical or dental college priori
after 15th July of each year - Effect of
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
The appellants had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test
conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic
year 2006. The results were declared in July 2006.
Appellant No.1 secured general rank 1614 while appellant
No.2 secured general rank 3893 and SC rank 396. The
B first counseling was held on 21-22nd July, 2006 but at
that time, the .Jagdalpur College was not given
permission to commence admission to the MBBS course.
The counseling was conducted for medical colleges at
Raipur and Bilaspur and also for the Raipur Dental
c College. 18 per cent of seats were to be reserved for
allotment under the All India Quota and the Central Pool
quota. The State Government by its letter dated 14th
August, 2006, gr.anted permission for the starting of
admission procedure for the academic year 2006-07 at
0 the Jagdalpur College. Its annual admission capacity was
50 seats which were to be filled up by the candidates who
had qualified PMT 2006 in the order of their merit. The
State Government by letter dated 21st August, 2006 was
stated to have informed the Jagdalpur College that two
seats out of the total seats were reserved for allotment
E under the Central Pool Quota and no seats were reserved
under All India Quota. Upon receipt of recognition, only
48 seats were offered for admission to the students on
22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Central Pool Quota seats
were not filled up and were allegedly not made available
F to the candidates who appeared for that counseling. The
Dean of Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education on 30th September, 2006 that on that date, 48
candidates had taken admission and two seats were lying
vacant. This information was sent in response to inquiry
G by the Director, Medical Education in this regard and
directions were sought by the Jagdalpur College for
filling up of vacant seats. On the same day, the Director,
Medical Education, directed that the seats should be
filled from the merit list and the candidates could be
H contacted on telephone and if contact was not possible,
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 771
admission could be given to the candidates who were
A
available in the Jagdalpur College. On 30th September,
2006 itself, the two vacant seats were given to the
appellants. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College informed
the Director, Medical Education about the admission of
the appellants.
B
On a complaint regarding irregularity in admission
given to the appellants, a Committee was constituted
which gave report to the effect that no admission was
1granted to any students in All India quota and the
C
appellants got admission in Medical College Jagdalpur in
2006 by the State PMT merit on the last date of the
admission i.e. 30th September 2006. The inquiry report
was submitted by the Dean of Jagdalpur College to the
Directorate (DGHS). However, on 22nd July, 2010, the
Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
D
Government of Chhattisgarh was informed by the
Assistant Director General (Medical Education),
Government of India that the admission of the appellants
was on the basis of fake letters purported to be issued
from the DGHS and that their admissions may be
E
cancelled with immediate effect and action taken report
be submitted to the DGHS. In furtherance to this letter, the
Deputy Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued order
dated 10th September, 2010 stating that the admission of
F
these two appellants was not in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules and other guidelines/provisions
with regard to allotment of seats under the All India Quota
and the admission was cancelled with immediate effect.
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court.
G
The High Court held that admission to the appellants was
given ignoring more meritorious and suitable candidates
which amounted to violation of natural justice to such
other candidates and declined to interfere with the order
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A of cancellation of admission. The instant appeals were
filed challenging the order of the High Court.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Admission to professional colleges is
B governed by the judgment of this Court in the case of
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
[(2002) 8 SCC 481]. The framework of admissions to
colleges was discussed in some detail by this Court.
However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v.
C Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 sec 654], the concept of
an All India quota came to be introduced while
determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such
admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the undergraduate courses were reserved for this purpose, which
D came to be modified to 15 per cent seats for All India
quota in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal
Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22). In the
case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459), this Court also
E passed directions in relation to the manner of notification/
announcement of details, results and counseling for
admission, in that case, for post graduate admissions,
whi"ch were to be published in two successive issues of
newspapers, including one national paper in English and
F at least two local papers in the language of the State.
Declaration· of results would be made four weeks after the
examination and academic courses were to mandatorily
begin on the 2nd of May every year. Again, in the case of
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4 sec 627), as some of the States
G were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court
took punitive action against the State of Uttar Pradesh
and even contemplated action under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain's case, this
Court has always directed that merit alone must be the
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 773
criteria for admission to MBBS courses. To make such
A
admissions more subject-specific, transparent and
systematic, certain further directions were issued by this
Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of
Health Services & Anr. & etc. [(1993) 3 SCC 332]. This Court
clarified that candidates who have been allotted a seat in
B
the second round of counseling will have to join the
college within 15 days from the date of their personal
appearance and the whole allotment and admission
process to 15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over
before the 30th September of each year, the remaining c
seats having been surrendered back to the college/State.
Various judgments of this Court have sought to carry
forward, with greater clarity, the fundamental requirement
as stated in TMA Pai that the admission process should
be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Every
0
subsequent judgment of this Court has attempted to
elucidate one or other aspect of this principle. Having
noticed that there have been irregularities in maintaining
the prescribed schedule and that the last few days of the
declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an
exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees
for securing admission and thereby defeating the
principle of admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65] applied the schedule
notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix
E
F
'E' of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment)
Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. The
Court noticed that the holding of 10+2 examination and
declaration of results is also of importance for the entire
admission process and, therefore, directed strict G
adherence to the Schedule in all respects and by all
concerned. The date of 30th September was stated not
to be the date of normal admission but is to give
opportunity to grant admission against stray vacancies.
The Court clarified that adherence to the time schedule
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A by everyone was a paramount concern. In that case, the
Court issued a specific direction to all the State
functionaries, particularly the Chief Secretaries and
heads of the concerned Ministries/Departments
participating in the States/Union Territories, adopting the
B time schedule and holding the State examination, to
ensure declaration of results on or before 15th June,
2005. They were also required to ensure the appropriate
utilization of All India quota, to fullest extent, by timely
reporting to the DGHS by the Deans of various colleges
C or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of the
acceptance or rejection of seats by the students after the
first counseling of All India/State Quota. Further, this
Court even took pains to declare the need for adherence
to the schedule .for receipt of applications for
0 establishment of new medical colleges or seats and the
process of the review and recommendation by the
Central Government and the Medical Council of India.
Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College &
Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. {(2011) 4 SCC 623], this
Court cautioned all concerned that the schedule specified
E in Mridul Dhar should be maintained and regulations
should be strictly followed. The Court suggested that the
process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or
renewal of permission should also be done well in
advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies
F pointed out. [Paras 20, 21, 23] (805-D-H; 806-A-H; 808-CH; 810-C-D]
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2002) 8 SCC 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587; Dr. Pradeep
G Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 654: 1984
(3) SCR 942; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru
College, Allahabad & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 22: 1985 (1) Suppl.
SCR 41; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 459: 1988 (1) SCR 351; Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad
H & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 627: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 135; Shrawan
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 775
Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services &
A
Anr. & etc. (1993) 3 SCC 332; Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65: 2005 (1) SCR 380;
Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India &
Ors. (2011) 4 sec 623: 2011 (2) SCR 945 - relied on.
B
2. In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay
Kumar Sinha & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624], a Bench of this
Court took exception to the non-adherence to the time
schedules and reiterated that the admissions to medical
colleges and post-graduate courses were governed by
C
the orders of this Court and the regulations issued by the
Medical Council of India, which must be strictly followed.
This Court issued a warning, that if there was any
violation in future, the same shall be treated as default
and viewed very seriously. Further, in the case of Medical
Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258],
D
this Court declared two very important principles. Firstly,
it declared that mid-stream admissions should not be
permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of
compassion in review of such admissions, this Court also
held that late or mid-stream admission, even just four
E
months after beginning of the classes, cannot be
permitted. [Para 24] [810-E-H]
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors.
(1990) 4 SCC 624: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 168 Medical
F
Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 258:
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 - relied on.
3. Admissions based on favouritism necessarily
breach the rule of merit on the one hand, while on the
other, they create frustration in the minds of the students
G
who have attained higher rank in the competitive entrance
examinations, but have not been admitted. Adherence to
the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed
schedule, refraining from mid-stream admissions and
adoption of an admission process that is transparent,
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A non-exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of
the entire scheme. The schedules prescribed have the
force of law, in as much as they form part of the
judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and
B form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of
India, which also have the force of law and are binding
on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any
authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules
to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the
c Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State
Government, University or the selection bodies
constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by
way of counseling. None of these authorities are vested
with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time
0 schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided
in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council
of India Regulations. Inter alia, the disadvantages are:-
E
F
G
H
(1)
(2)
(3)
Delay and unauthorized extension of
schedules defeat the principle of admission on
merit, especially in relation to preferential
choice of colleges and courses. Magnanimity
in this respect, by condoning delayed
admission, need not be shown by the Courts
as it would clearly be at the cost of more
meritorious students. The principle of merit
cannot be so blatantly compromised. This was
also affirmed by this Court in the case of
Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
u2oos) s sec 1 ss1.
Mid-stream admissions are being permitted
under the garb of extended counseling or by
extension of periods for admission which,
again, is impermissible.
The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 777
in the commencement of courses etc.,
A
encourage lowering of the standards of
education in the Medical/Dental Colleges by
shortening the duration of the academic
courses and promoting the chances of
arbitrary and less meritorious admissions.
B
(4)
Inequities are created which are prejudicial to
the interests of the students and the colleges
and more importantly, affect the maintenance
of prescribed standard of education. These
inequities arise because the candidates secure
C
admission, with or without active connivance,
by the manipulation and arbitrary handling of
the prescribed schedules, at the cost of more
meritorious candidates. When admissions are
challenged, these students would run the risk
D
of losing their seats though they may have
completed their course while litigation was
pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.
(5)
The highly competitive standards for
E
admission to such colleges stand frustrated
because of non-adherence to the prescribed
time schedules. The admissions are stretched
to the last date and then admissions are
arbitrarily given by adopting impermissible
F
practices.
(6)
Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/
approved colleges and seats deprives the
students of their right of fair choice of college/
course, on the strength of their merit.
G
(7)
Preference should be to fill up all vacant seats,
but under the garb that seats should not go
waste, it would be impermissible to give
admissions in an arbitrary manner and without
H
A
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
recourse to the prescribed rule of merit. [Para
26- 27] [811-E-H; 812-A-H; 813-A-G]
Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2005) 9
sec 186 - relied on.
s
4. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the
Governments and the Universities are expected to act in
tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition
for starting of the medical courses and grant of admission
are strictly within the time frame declared by this Court
c and the regulations. However, despite warnings having
been issued by this Court and despite the observations
made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to
the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously,
matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by
0 different authorities and colleges and granting of
admission arbitrarily and with favouritism have often
invited criticism from this Court. The consistent effort of
this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence
to law is not only being thwarted by motivated action on
the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also
E been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions.
Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and
more litigation with the passage of time. [Para 28] [813G-H; 814-A-F]
F
Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8
SCC 355: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 262; Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss)
v. DGHS (1994) 2 sec 370 - relied on.
5. The maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere
places an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it
G resolves the causes of litigation in the country. Thus, the
need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and
statutory regulations be enforced, so that all concerned
are mandatorily required to implement the time schedule
in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not even
H advisable to keep some windows open to meet a
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 779
particular situation of exception, as it may pose
A
impediments to the smooth implementation of laws and
defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules
have been prescribed upon serious consideration by all
concerned. They are to be applied stricto sensu and
cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some
B
economic or other interest of any institution, especially,
in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the
stated principles. Thus, the following directions in rem are
issued for their strict compliance, without demur and
default, by all concerned,.
c
(i)
The commencement of new courses or
increase in seats of existing courses of MBBS/
BOS are to be approved/recognised by the
Government of India by 15th July of each
calendar year for the relevant academic
D
sessions of that year.
(ii)
The Medical Council of India shall, immediately
thereafter, issue appropriate directions and
ensure
the
implementation
and
E
commencement of admission process within
one week thereafter.
(iii)
After 15th July of each year, neither the Union
of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of
India shall issue any recognition or approval
F
for the current academic year. If any such
approval is granted after 15th July of any year,
it shall only be operative for the next academic
year and not in the current academic year.
Once the sanction/approval is granted on or G
before 15th July of the relevant year, the name
of that college and all seats shall be included
in both the first and the second counseling, in
accordance with the Rules.
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
(iv)
Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof,
to which the recognition/approval is issued
subsequent to .15th July of the respective year
shall not be included in the counseling to be
conducted by the concerned authority and
B
that college would have no right to make
admissions in the current academic year
against such seats.
(v)
The admission to the medical or dental
c
colleges shall be granted only through the
respective entrance tests conducted by the
competitive authority in the State or the body
of the private colleges. These are the methods
of selection and grant of admission to these
D
courses. However, where there is a single
Board conducting the State examination and
there is a single medical college, then in terms
of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India
Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the
admission can be given on the basis of 10+2
E
exam marks, strictly in order of merit.
(vi)
All admissions through any of the stated
selection processes have to be effected only
after due publicity and in consonance with the
F
directions issued by this Court. The practice
of giving admissions on 30th September of the
academic year is strongly deprecated. In fact,
that is the date by which, in exceptional
circumstances, a candidate duly selected as
G
per the prescribed selection process is to join
the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the
directions of this Court, second counseling
should be the final counseling, as this Court
has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora
H
& Anr. v. UOI & Ors. ((2003) 3 SCC 366] and third
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 781
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
counseling is not contemplated or permitted
A
under the entire process of selection/grant of
admission to these professional courses.
If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered
from All India Quota, they should positively be
8
allotted and admission granted strictly as per
the merit by 15th September of the relevant
year and not by holding an extended
counseling. The remaining time will be limited
to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting
C
from exceptional circumstances or surrender
of seats. All candidates should join the
academic courses by 30th September of the
academic year.
No college may grant admissions without duly
D
advertising the vacancies available and by
publicizing the same through the internet,
newspaper, on the notice board of the
respective feeder schools and colleges, etc.
Every effort has to be made by all concerned
E
to ensure that the admissions are given on
merit and after due publicity and not in a
manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts
the shadow of favouritism.
The admissions to all government colleges
have to be on merit obtained in the entrance
examination conducted by the nominated
authority, while in the case of private colleges,
F
the colleges should choose their option by
30th April of the relevant year, as to whether G
they wish to grant admission on the basis of
the merit obtained in the test conducted by the
nominated State authority or they wish to
follow the merit list/rank obtained by the
candidates in the competitive examination
H
A
B
c
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 5 S.C.R.
collectively held by the nominated agency for
the private colleges. The option exercised by
30th April shall not be subject to change. This
choice should also be given by the colleges
which are anticipating grant of recognition, in
compliance with the date specified in these
directions. [Paras 29- 30) [814-G-H; 815-A-H;
816-A-H; 817-A-H]
Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 366:
2003 (1) SCR 562 - relied on.
6. All these directions shall be complied with by all
concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of
India, Dental Council of India, State Governments,
Universities and medical and dental colleges and the
0 management of the respective universities or dental and
medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these
conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall,
without fail, invite the following consequences and penal
actions:-
E
F
G
H
a)
Every body, officer or authority who disobeys
or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these
directions stricto sensu shall be liable for
action under the provisions of the Contempt
of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any
interested party to take out the contempt
proceedin~s before the High Court having
jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
b)
The person, member or authority found
responsible for any violation shall be
departmentally proceeded against and
punished in accordance with the Rules.
Violation of these directions or overreaching
them by any process shall tantamount to
indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and
being unworthy of becoming a public servant.
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 783
c)
Such defaulting authority, member or body
A
shall also be liable for action by and personal
liability to third parties who might have
suffered losses as a result of such default.
d)
B
There shall be due channelization of selection
and admission process with full cooperation
and coordination between the Government of
India, State Government, Universities, Medical
Council of India or Dental Council of India and
the colleges concerned. They shall act in
C
tandem and strictly as per the prescribed
schedule. In other words, there should be
complete harmonisation with a view to form a
uniform pattern for concerted action,
according to the framed scheme, schedule for
admission arid regulations framed in this
D
behalf.
e)
The college which grants admission for the
current academic year, where its recognition/
approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of E
the current academic year, shall be liable for
withdrawal of recognition/approval on this
ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify
such students who are denied admission or
who are wrongfully given admission in the
F
college.
f)
Upon the expiry of one week after holding of
the second counseling, the unfilled seats from
all quotas shall be deemed to have been
surrendered in favour of the respective States
G
and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the
basis of merit obtained in the competitive
entrance test.
g)
It shall be mandatory on the part of each
H
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
college and University to inform the State and
the Central Government/competent authority
of the seats which are lying vacant after each
counseling and they shall furnish the complete
details, list of seats filled and vacant in the
B
respective states, immediately after each
counseling.
h)
No college shall fill up its seats in any other
manner. [Para 31] [818-A-H; 819-A-F]
C
7. The instant case is a glaring example of calculated
tampering with the schedule specified under the
regulations and the judgments of this Court, with a clear
intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates
over and above the candidates of higher merit. The High
D Court had cancelled the admission of the appellants by
a detailed and well-reasoned judgment. However, as a
result of interim orders granted by the Court, both the
appellants had already completed four years of the
studies at the time of the High Court decision. They are
E stated to have completed their final exam now. Despite
having lost their case before the High Court, the
appellants continued to pursue their professional
courses because of the interim orders of the Court and,
therefore, the plea of inequities was raised. On 30th
F September, 2006, the Director, Medical Education,
Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to the Dean of the College,
requiring that the Jagdalpur College provide the up-todate list of the students admitted to it and if there were
any seats remaining vacant, guidance was to be taken
G from the Directorate of the State Government. Another
letter written by the Director, Medical Education, to the
Dean of the Jagdalpur College and referring to their letter
of the same date, which stated that two seats were .
vacant, in turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and
H the candidates be contacted over telephone. If contact
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 785
could not be established with any candidate, then the
A
Jagdalpur College was directed to fill up the seats with
the candidates physically present and available at the
Jagdalpur College, according to merit. The Dean of the
Jagdalpur College, on that very day, constituted a
Committee to examine the certificates etc. of the available
candidates and recommend the names on the basis of
merit. Again, on that very day, the Committee
recommended the names of the two appellants, declaring
them to be eligible for getting admissions. More strangely,
B
the Committee also noted that the fees from the c
candidates had been deposited and they could be given
admission. Then, by another letter dated 30th September,
2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director,
Medical Education that the two appellants were given
admission and the admission process for 50 seats had
0
been completed. There was nothing placed on the
records of the Court as to what steps were taken by the
Jagdalpur College to inform all the other candidates of
counseling on the last date. Also strange was the
direction of the Directorate that.the candidates should be
informed on telephone. Even if this direction was of some
content and meaning, there is still no material to show
how many candidates were actually informed on the
telephone that there would be counseling for two seats.
Thus, the questions remained open, as to the reason for
total abandonment of the procedure of informing all
eligible candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats
were available for admissions, who all had actually
appeared for the counseling, how only two candidates
who even according to the State Government were not
contacted on telephone, were alone present before the
G
Committee and immediately found to be eligible for
admission. This entire exercise smacked of arbitrariness,
unfairness and was discriminatory ex facie. Respondent
No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in
Chhattisgarh, is the father of appellant no.2 and that
H
E
F
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 5 S.C.R.
A speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted
to the appellants. [Paras 33, 36-37] [820-A-D; 821-D-H;
822-A-F]
8. The methodology adopted and the manner in
which admissions were given to the appellants would
B show that this process was neither fair nor transparent.
In fact, within a few hours, the entire process of
admission was completed, indicating that the whole
exercise was undertaken only with the object of granting
admission to the appellants, that too, as if no other
C candidates of merit were available for these two seats.
This view was entirely substantiated by the records
produced before us. The prescribed procedure for grant
of admission was given a go by and the rule of admission
on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such
o admission process. One fails to understand why no
preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant seats were
taken by any of the competent authorities involved in the
entire process of selection and admission to MBBS
courses. The students who had undertaken the PMT
E examination had been allocated seats in the college on
23rd August, 2006. Not even a single document was
placed on record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006 to
29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant
seats. Everybody waited for the last date which, in fact,
F was the date for joining the courses and not admission,
whereafter the entire machinery in the Centre, State
Government and the college acted so swiftly that within
hours, the entire admission process was concluded to
grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty of
G fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the
Jagdalpur College, the Directorate as well as the
Committee constituted for counseling/selection could
find only the candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614
suitable, completely ignoring all the candidates being
higher in merit than these two appellants, who must a,lso
H be waiting for admission to the MBBS course. Strangely,
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 787
the merit ranks of these two appellants, as given in the
A
letter of the DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 were 2196 and
2203 respectively. From every angle only one conclusion
is possible that the allocation of seats was totally
arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid down. The
three members of the Selection Committee found only
B
these two candidates eligible and fit to be granted
admission to the MBBS courses on the last day for
admissions. To say the least, this Committee acted in
undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure of
admission and certainly contrary to the judgments of this c
Court. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College is directed to
convey the displeasure of this Court to the members of
the Selection Committee and the same be placed on their
respective service records. [Para 38] [822-G-H; 823-A-H;
824-A]
9. The Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the
admission to the two appellants was not given in
furtherance to the letter dated 8th August, 2006, but validly
granted on 30th September, 2006 instead. Their report did
D
not even mention if they had verified the fact that notices
E
had been issued to all the concerned persons on 30th
September, 2006 and if other students had been
contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was
even made on 30th September, 2006 or even prior thereto
to put these two vacant seats on the internet or notice
F
board of the colleges so as to enable the students of
higher merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in
the Jagdalpur College. This aspect attained a greater
significance in view of the fact that the seats were not
allotted in the second counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd
G
August, 2006. The Jagdalpur College, the Directorate of
the State Government as well as the Union of India made
no effort and did not act in coordination, to allot these
two seats to the candidates in accordance with merit in
the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee appears
H
to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It
was not only expected of the Committee to examine the
documents which were made available to it, as is
recorded in the report, but also to call for all such
necessary documents which were relevant and could
s have bearing on the reference made to it. The Committee
did not even care to know why everything was
completed on 30th September, 2006 and how nobody
. else except these two appellants were available for
admission from amongst candidates in the entire State.
c [Para 39) [824-B-H; 825-A-C]
10. Another aspect of this inquiry was that, even as
on 30th September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which
quota these two vacant seats belonged to. According to
the State of Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of
D the 15 per cent All India quota which stood surrendered
after 23rd August, 2006. According to the appellants, they
were Central Pool quota seats which stood surrendered
to the State on 30th September, 2006 only. According to
the Union of India, they had not made any allotment to
E the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College from
the All India Quota, and even the code number given on
the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the
Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not
ad idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and
F who was the competent authority to allot the seats, none
of them had any business to allot these two seats in such
an arbitrary manner. Even now, there is no clarity as to
how and under what quota the Jagdalpur College has
granted admission to these two appellants. The inquiry
G report, in fact, did not help to resolve the issue and
cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any finding in
favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings
returned by the Inquiry Committee would appear to be
inconclusive, uncertain and vague. Be that as it may,
H there is no escape from returning the finding that
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 789
admission of both the appellants was made in a most A • .
improper and arbitrary manner. The whole exercise was
undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only one aim
in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be given
admission in the Jagdalpur College. [para 40] [825-C-H;
826-A]
B
11. The cancellation of the admission of the
appellants was challenged by the appellants before the .
High Court, which allowed continuation of study under
interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ
petitions filed by these appellants. At that time, they had
C
already completed more than four years of the MBBS
course to which they were admitted. Today, they have
already appeared for their final examination.