On 21st October 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that even if on the last date of admission, seats remained vacant was no ground by the institutions to grant admissions unilaterally and that too without intimating the vacant seats to the Directorate. (Dental Council of India Vs. Sailendra Sharma and Others)
Facts of the case:
The admissions in various Postgraduate Course in Dental Sciences were to be made through counselling by the state government. As per the relevant rules and regulations, namely, Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules, 2017 and the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 and MDS Course Regulations, 2017, seats were required to be intimated to the State Government and Directorate of Medical Education. As per the procedure, after the first round of counselling, there shall be second round and thereafter mop up round. The dispute is with respect to three Dental Colleges, New Horizon Dental College Research Institute, Bilaspur, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research, Anjora Durg and Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai. The respective colleges intimated 7, 9 and 15 seats respectively. The vacant seats of the above three colleges were notified in the notice by the Directorate of Medical Education. In the mop up round after counselling, new above-mentioned colleges were allotted 7, 9 and 13 seats respectively. Total vacant seats 46, out of which 43 were allotted, out of which only 35 joined. Only 3 seats remained unallotted, 1 in Chhattisgarh Dental College and 2 in Rungta College. Thereafter, Directorate sent list of 30 students for filling of those 3 seats. The respondents were not allotted seats by the Directorate. Without intimating about the vacant seats, the above three colleges granted admission to respondents. The same was intimated to the Directorate on 31.05.2018 after the admission was granted. Knowing about the illegality of admission same was cancelled by state government. Same was the subject matter of the Writ Petition filed before the HC, which was allowed and quashed & set-aside the communication dated 6.6.2018, allowing the respondents to complete their course. Aggrieved by the same, appellants filed the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant 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 colleges in admitting the original writ petitioners illegally. They were admitted de hors the policy, rules, regulations and the procedure to be followed for the purpose of admission in postgraduate. Without intimating the Directorate about the vacant seats, unilaterally the private institutions granted admissions to the original writ petitioners by backdoor. As soon as the Directorate came to know about such an illegality and the illegal admissions granted by the colleges, immediately the State Government acted and cancelled the admissions vide communication dated 6.6.2018. 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.” Reference was taken from the cases of, Abdul Ahad and Others v. Union of India and Others, and Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma & Others.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “as by 31.05.2018 at 4:30 p.m., the seats remained vacant and therefore the private institutions granted admissions to the students so as to see that the seats are not wasted. The students who were granted admissions were all meritorious students and therefore the merits have not been given go bye. In fact, the particulars of the vacant sears were displayed and only thereafter admissions were given. Now as the students have completed their course, they may be permitted to complete their course and the results be declared.”
Observations and Judgement of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “in the mop up round of counselling, the original writ petitioners did participate but could not secure admission on merits in the respective colleges in which subsequently they got admissions through backdoor. If the original writ petitioners were so much meritorious, they would have got admissions in the respective colleges on merits through mop up round conducted by the Directorate. 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. The only inference can be that the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students got admissions illegally. So far as the State is concerned, the State promptly took a decision to 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. 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 perpetuating the illegality. The prayer on behalf of the institutions/students to allow them to complete their course is not required to be accepted. The undue sympathy would lead to perpetuating the illegality and giving premium to the students who got admissions illegally.” Cases of Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose, CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Supreet Batra and Others v. Union of India and Others were referred by the court.
The judgement and order passed by the HC was quashed & set aside and communication issued by the Directorate annulling the admission was restored.
Case: Dental Council of India Vs. Sailendra Sharma and Others
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7611 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7613 OF 2022 & CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7612 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah And Justice M.M. Sundresh
Date: October 21, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
