Manish Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2950 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manish Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 3 January, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1227-DB
 

 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41980 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amardeo Singh,Ankit Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akanksha Sharma,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,Hridai Narain Pandey,Vivek Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a direction upon the respondents to grant him admission in MBBS in Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences on par with Government Medical College fee, which are allotted through UG NEET, 2024 in the counseling process of Round 1 and 2. A further prayer is made to keep one MBBS seat vacant in Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences for petitioner's son till final outcome of the present writ petition.

2. Records of the writ petition indicate that petitioner's son appeared in the NEET examination for admission to MBBS course in 2024 and was allocated All India Rank 94797. Petitioner's son belongs to OBC category. The allocation of seat for admission in medical college was in accordance with the counseling process fixed by the third respondent. It appears that petitioner's son in the first counseling as also in the second counseling was allotted admission in Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences, Greater Noida, which is a private institution. The petitioner's son, however, failed to deposit fee and avail of the admission offered to him in the private institution. The process of admission has since concluded on 5th December, 2024. It is thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed seeking above reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an office memorandum dated 3.2.2022, contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, which lays down the guidelines for determination of fees and all charges in respect of 50% seats in private medical institution as well as deemed universities, governed under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The provision contained in the aforesaid regulation is relied upon, as per which the maximum fees payable for admission to MBBS course would not exceed the highest fees payable in the Government Medical Colleges for such category.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atul Kumar Vs. The Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and others, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 609 of 2024, wherein the Supreme Court has issued following directions in paragraph 6 to 9 of the judgment dated 30.9.2024:-

"6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has furnished to the Court the log-in details of the petitioner, which indicate that he was diligent in accessing the portal and did everything within his power to secure the realization of his admission. The petitioner logged in on 24 June 2024 between 15.12 hours and 16.57 hours, on as many as six occasions. This evidently indicates that he was making earnest efforts to log into the portal. There is no conceivable reason why the petitioner would not have done so if he had the wherewithal to pay the fees of Rs 17,500. A talented student like the petitioner who belongs to a marginalized group of citizens and has done everything to secure admission should not be left in the lurch. The power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do substantial justice is meant precisely to cover such a situation.

7. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner should be granted admission to IIT Dhanbad against the seat which was allotted to him in the branch of Electrical Engineering. The petitioner will be admitted to the same batch to which he would have been admitted in pursuance of the order of allotment. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay fees of Rs 17,500, which may be paid over personally at the time when admission is granted to him. A supernumerary seat shall be created for the petitioner, if so required, for the purpose of complying with this order and no existing student shall be disturbed in consequence. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits of admission, including allotment of hostel accommodation and other facilities.

8. Since the admission of the petitioner has been delayed for no fault of his, we request the Director of IIT Dhanbad to use his good offices to ensure that the petitioner can duly complete the course work for the period which has already elapsed during this academic year. This will ensure that the petitioner is abreast of his class and does not suffer for the delay in granting him admission.

9. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms."

5. The petition is opposed by learned State Counsel, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, who appears for the respondent no.2, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari for the respondent no.4 and Ms. Akanksha Sharma for the respondent no.3.

6. Ms. Akanksha Sharma appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that the regulation dated 3.2.2022, which is relied upon by the petitioner is not available to the petitioner's son, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Education Promotion Society for India, Rep. by its Executive Secretary Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4463. The Division Bench after considering various aspects has directed the National Medical Commission to have a re-look on the issue and till a fresh direction is issued in that regard, the fee structure would continue to be governed as is presently enforced. Paragraph 51 to 55 of the judgment of Madras High Court is relied upon, which reads as under:-

"51. In view of the above, there is a need for the National Medical Commission to give a re-look to the Office Memorandum under challenge, when it would be operating not in one State, but in all the States of the country having different seat matrix arrangement as well as fee structure for government quota and management quota seats. The aforesaid has been elaborately referred by the Expert Committee in its report. In few States, the management quota seats are limited to 15% and the government quota seats are at 85% and in variation, in few States, the government quota seats were 30% and the remaining were management quota seats, apart from NRI quota, etc. The intention behind bringing Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 is to determine the fee of the management quota seats, which was earlier determined by the Committee headed by the Retired High Court Judge.

52. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find reason to direct the National Medical Commission to re-visit the Office Memorandum dated 3.2.2022 in the light of the observations made by us and if the intention of the Parliament was to make provision for determining the fee structure for all the seats in the medical colleges, then to amend Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 appropriately. However, the provision now operating and held to be constitutionally valid allows the National Medical Commission to regulate fee of 50% of seats and if such regulation of fee is permitted in regard to the management quota seats, then the Office Memorandum under challenge can operate, but the question would be for determination of fee for the remaining 50% seats to be at par with the fee in the government medical colleges. To avoid confusion of any nature, it would be appropriate for the respondents to take a decision on it at the earliest so that a proper fee structure is determined for the students, which may not result in cross-subsidization of fees.

53. The aforesaid is required even for the reason that if there would be a huge difference of the fee structure between two sets of students, then it may even result in sacrificing the merit of the candidates in view of the fact that after filling of first 50% of seats of government quota at par with the fee of the government medical colleges, the remaining would be offered to the next meritorious candidate and if the next meritorious candidate is not in a position to bear the burden of high fee, he/she would be unable to take admission in the medical college and then the seat would go to the next meritorious candidate, who may be below the caliber of the candidate who could not afford to pay high fee. This would ultimately result in sacrificing the merit and the worst scenario would be when no candidate down in the merit list is ready to take the burden of paying high fee and the seat remains vacant, which would be a loss to the institution and the nation.

54. The aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Expert Committee while making recommendation, though it has undertaken extensive work not only for collection of data from different States, but even considering the suggestions and objections from the medical colleges. The Expert Committee while making recommendation, however, could not visualize that if there would be huge different in the fee structure between two sets of students, it may result in sacrificing the merit.

55. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that in the light of the observations and finding recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the National Medical Commission should at the earliest come out with a fresh Office Memorandum after giving a re-look to the Office Memorandum under challenge. Till the exercise aforesaid is undertaken, the fee structure may be governed by the present system."

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further submits that no fresh guideline in that regard has been issued and therefore the present system of payment of fees would continue to apply.

8. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atul Kumar (supra) is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the exigency giving rise to the case of Atul Kumar are entirely distinct, inasmuch as the petitioner in that case although had made attempts to log into portal and deposit the fees, yet he was denied such opportunity. It is submitted that in the present case the petitioner's son has failed to deposit the fee, which is to the tune of approximately Rs.11,92,000/- and apart from depositing the counseling fee and the initial deposits as per the counseling procedure, the petitioner's son has neither deposited the fee nor has availed the benefit of admission, and therefore, at such belated stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner's son.

9. From the facts placed on record, it is apparent that petitioner's son had qualified NEET and had secured All India Rank 94797. On the basis of his rank petitioner's son is not eligible for admission in Government Medical College. The petitioner's son was offered admission in a private medical college i.e. Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences, Greater Noida. State Government and its authorities have already determined the fees payable in private medical colleges, which for the first year is to the tune of approximately Rs.11,92,000/-. Records further reveal that in the first counseling and in the second counseling the private medical college was allotted to the petitioner's son. The first and second counseling was held in September, 2024. The petitioner's son on account of financial constraints or otherwise has not availed the admission offered to him. There is no denial of facts in this regard.

10. The grievance raised by the petitioner's son is essentially two fold. It is firstly submitted that the fee fixed by the private medical college cannot exceed the fee payable in a Government Medical College in view of the circular dated 3.2.2022. The second part of submission is that the petitioner's son is ready to deposit the fee admissible to a student in the Government Medical College and since such opportunity has been denied to petitioner's son, as such, appropriate direction be issued for admission in MBBS course to the petitioner's son, by this Court.

11. So far as the office memorandum dated 3.2.2022 is concerned, we find that though an observation is made therein with regard to determination of fees for 50% seats in a private medical institution at par with the State Medical College, yet this office memorandum may not be available to the petitioner's son in view of the subsequent order passed by Madras High Court in Education Promotion Society for India, Rep. by its Executive Secretary (supra). The private institution in which the admission has been offered to the petitioner's son is otherwise not impleaded as a party in the writ petition nor there is any challenge in the writ petition to determination of fees for MBBS course in a private medical college. Merely because certain observations have been made by the National Medical Commission in its office memorandum dated 3.2.2022, it cannot be construed that the fee fixed by the competent body for the private institutions would stand reduced to the fees payable in the Government institutions.

12. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner's son has been offered admission in the private medical college on the basis of his rank in the counseling, but he has not availed of such admission offered to him, in the first and second counseling. It is not the case of the petitioner's son that on account of any technical fault in operation of the website that he could secure admission. The reason for non-securing of admission was the non-deposit of fees payable in the college concerned. In the absence of petitioner failing to deposit fee for the MBBS course and thereby avail admission, we cannot entertain the present writ petition, particularly when the last date for securing admission, as per the counseling schedule, has already expired. No illegality is pointed out in the action of respondents, which may persuade this Court to entertain the present writ petition.

13. Writ petition, consequently, lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.1.2025

Anil

(Donadi Ramesh,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.)