Bombay High Court
Takhatmal Shrivallabh ... vs Union Of India, Thr. Its ... on 4 May, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
18-wp 410-21.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 410 OF 2021
Takhtmal Shrivallab Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital and ors.
-Vs-
Union of India and ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.S. Dhore counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar h/f ASGI, for respondent no.1
Mr.N.R.Patil, AGP for respondent no.3.
Mr.Nikhil Gaikwad, counsel for respondent no.4.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 04.05.2021.
1. Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and video quality was proper.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are the students
who have been given admission by the petitioner no.1 to
1st year BHMS Course for open category in institutional
quota.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner nos.2, 3
and 4 have scored less than 50 percentile in the entrance
test called NEET U.G.-2019. It is also an admitted fact
that even for securing admission in institutional quota,
the minimum percentile in NEET is 50. As the petitioners
had not secured minimum percentile of marks in the
Kavita
18-wp 410-21.odt
NEET Examination, in the first place, the petitioner nos.2,
3 and 4 ought not to have been admitted to BHMS
Course by the petitioner no.1. But, the petitioner no.1
did it. Thereafter, by the order passed on 26.06.2020,
the respondent no.4-the Admission Regulating Authority
refused approval of admission to the said course of the
petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4. Now the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 26.06.2020 by filing this
petition.
5. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the petitioners have a good case as in Civil
Appeal no.603 of 2020 (Union of India v. Federation of
Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges Punjab & Ors) and
other, decided on 20.02.2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court
directed as one time measure that the students who have
already been granted admission to AYUSH under
graduate courses even though they had not secured
qualifying marks, should be continued to complete the
course.
6. Shri. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4, submits that the relief so granted by
the Hon'ble Apex Court applies to only those students
who are granted admissions on the strength of interim
orders passed by the High Courts, which is not the case
here.
7. On going through the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 20.02.2020 rendered in aforestated
Civil Appeals, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has only by way of one time measure granted interim
Kavita
18-wp 410-21.odt
relief to the students whose score in terms of percentile
was less than minimum percentile only in a case where,
the students were admitted to AYUSH Under Graduate
Courses on the strength of interim orders passed by the
High Courts. In the present case, as rightly submitted by
the learned counsel Shri. Gaikwad, the petitioner nos.2, 3
and 4 had not been admitted to BHMS course on the
basis of any interim orders passed by this Court or any
other Court, but only because such admission was given
to them by the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1, in
spite of knowing that the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 had
not scored qualifying marks of minimum 50 percentile in
the NEET examination, granted admission to them, which
decision was, in our opinion, in violation of the
applicable Admission Rules. Therefore, the rejection of
the approval of the admission so granted to the petitioner
nos.2, 3 and 4 by the respondent no.4 could not be
faulted with in any manner. There is thus, no substance
in this petition.
8. As regards the consequences for giving
admission to the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 in violation of
the applicable Admission Rules, the petitioner no.1
would have to accept the whole responsibility and be
accountable to the students for having caused loss to the
academic year of these petitioners.
9. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
