Bombay High Court
Grishma Nanrendra Khaire vs The Commissioner Of State Common ... on 20 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:4832-DB
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 12129 Of 2024
With
Civil Application No. 12060 Of 2024
in Writ Petition No.12129/2024
Grishma d/o Nanrendra Khaire
Age : 18 years, Occupation-Student,
Permanent R/o C-32, Methila Apartment,
Shivaji Complex, Mankapur,
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of State Common
Entrance Cell,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400001.
2. The Admission Regulatory Authority
Duly constituted by the
Commissioner of State Common
Entrance Cell,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400001.
3. Dr. N.Y. Tasgaonkar Institute of
Medical Sciences, Karjat
District Raigad,
Through its Dean. .. Respondents
*****
* Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. Majit S. Shaikh,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
* Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
*****
[1]
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ..
RESERVED ON : 10th FEBRUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th FEBRUARY 2025
J U D G M E N T (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties.
2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and she
secured 533 out of 720 marks in NEET-UG for 2024-2025. She
was allotted a seat in Respondent No.3/College for M.B.B.S. She
was denied admission as she did not report the College within
stipulated time. She has approached this Court seeking direction
to confirm her seat in the Respondent No.3/College.
3. It is expedient to disclose the background of this petition.
Petitioner was allotted B.D.S. College which was at Hingoli in the
year 2023-2024. She had submitted original documents. She did
not continue with the said College and appeared for NEET-UG
2024. She was issued a letter allotting a seat provisionally in the
Respondent No.3/College. Her earlier College at Hingoli from
which she had resigned withheld her documents. Being aggrieved
she had to file Writ Petition No.1194/2024. It was disposed of by
order dated 24.10.2024 with a direction to return all the original
documents. After collecting the documents, when she reached
Respondent No.3/College, time for reporting was over.
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
4. It was represented that the seat was vacant and she could
be accommodated to it by extending time. In the vacation
elaborate order was passed on 31.10.2024. Considering the
developments that the seat matrix for CAP round - III was
published on 25.10.2024. The declaration of the list of online
vacancy was scheduled on 28.10.2024. The direction to
accommodate her in the Respondent No.3/College was denied.
She preferred Civil Application No.12060/2024 and solicited
order on 05.11.2024 representing that till 04.11.2024 one seat
reserved for SC (woman) was displayed to be vacant. The
direction was issued restraining the Respondents from allotting
seat in any manner which was allotted to the Petitioner
provisionally. Later on it was transpired that no seat was
available and already incumbent joined the Respondent
No.3/College.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit-in-reply on
record. It is contended that no seat was available on 05.11.2024.
The Petitioner is disqualified as she abandoned her BDS Course.
It is not possible to accommodate her either in the Respondent
No.3/College or in any other College.
6. Respondent no.3/College did not cause the appearance
despite service of notice for final hearing. It is not disclosed to us
as to who is the candidate joining the Respondent No.3/College
against the seat which was provisionally allotted to the Petitioner.
That person is not party to the petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
brochure of NEET-UG 2024. It is canvassed that Petitioner is
wrongly denied the admission and there was no mistake on her
part. She was entitled for extension of time and there is
discrimination at the instance of Respondents for not extending
time. On 04.11.2024 up to 07:00 pm., a vacancy of SC (woman)
was displayed and thereafter prohibitory order was passed on
05.11.2024. Respondent No.3/College wrongly admitted a
student against seat allotted to the Petitioner. The said College is
liable for the action. It is further submitted that the
disqualification is not automatic and there is no decision by
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik till this date.
8. It is submitted that this is a rarest case where indulgence of
this Court is necessary for creating a post to accommodate the
Petitioner or to permit the Petitioner to be adjusted in the next
year by reducing one seat of the Respondent No.3/College. It is
contended that in the alternative petitioner is entitled to
compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the
matters of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others, (2020) 17 SCC 465; Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital
and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,
Special Leave Petition (C) No.11785/2024; Vansh s/o Prakash
Dolas Vs. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare and Others, Special Leave Petition (C)
No.26179-26180/2023.
9. Mr. S.G. Karlekar appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
has canvassed submission as per his affidavit-in-reply. He has
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
placed reliance on Pallavi Manohar Dalvi and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2022 DGLS(Bom.) 1475 and Mahatma
Gandhi Missions Institute and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others, 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 545.
10. Having heard both sides, at the outset, we have to
appreciate that the Petitioner is a meritorious candidate and
belongs to a reserved category. She could have secured
admission under normal course of circumstances. It is
conundrum as to why she did not get a seat prior to CAP round -
III having scored 533 out of 720 marks. It is also not understood
as to what prevented her in approaching Respondent
No.3/College immediately, after being allotted a seat
provisionally vide letter dated 20.10.2024. When 24.10.2024 was
the last date for reporting Respondent No.3/College, she could
have promptly reported and secured the seat. Instead of
personally going to the College at Hingoli for collecting the
documents and thereafter rushing to the Respondent
No.3/College, beyond the cut of time, she could have secured
admission first with the Respondent No.3/College and requested
to grant time for submitting the documents.
11. It has been strenuously argued by learned Counsel Mr.
Deshmukh that she was not at fault and the Respondent
no.3/College deliberately denied the admission. In the matters of
admissions to Under Graduate Medical Course, time line is
sacrosanct. The student and the parents have to be alert
otherwise they have to face irresistible situation. It would not
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
possible for the Writ Court to extend time line or to create a seat
under normal course of circumstances. It is the centralized
admission process which is complex. The norms stipulated in the
brochure governing the process are fixed by the experts. The
Writ Court cannot cause indulgence just on the basis of
sympathies or equities. We are faced with such a situation.
12. We have to accept the statements of Mr. S.G. Karlekar and
rely on his affidavit that no seat is available with the Respondent
No.3/College or at any place to accommodate the Petitioner.
Respondent No.3/College is not before us despite of service of
notice. A candidate who is allotted a seat which was provisionally
allotted to the Petitioner is not party before us. We are unable to
grant relief of restoring admission to the Petitioner by canceling
the admission of the student who is not party to the petition. The
academic year of M.B.B.S. has already begun.
13. Petitioner failed to report the Respondent No.3/College in
time. It is not her case that on 24.10.2024 she reported in time
but the Respondent No.3/College denied her admission. It is not
disclosed by her the time and date when she reported the
Respondent No.3/College. Though she was armed with
provisional allotment letter, no right was created for admission in
the Respondent No.3/College. We find that she failed to make
out a case that the Respondent No.3/College deliberately denied
her admission though she was punctual in reporting the College.
14. It is contended by the Petitioner that up to the evening of
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
04.11.2024, there was vacancy of two seats including one for SC
(woman). On 05.11.2024, interim direction was issued by the
learned vacation Judge restraining the Respondents from
admitting a student. When those orders were passed,
Respondent No.3/College was not before the vacation Court. It is
not clear as to when incumbent was allotted a seat in the
Respondent No.3/College to which the Petitioner was taking
claim. Neither the College is before us, nor the concerned
student. In all probabilities, the said student might have been
allotted the seat before the vacation Court could pass orders on
05.11.2024. We are unable to fix any liability on the Respondent
No.3/College.
15. Our attention is adverted to the provisions of brochure of
NEET-UG-2024 to buttress the submission that it was not
permissible to allot seat to the incumbent. We have gone through
the notes appended to Clause Nos. 11.1.9 as well as letter dated
24.07.2023. We have also considered order passed by the
coordinate bench at Principal Seat on 25.10.2024 in Writ Petition
No.12646/2024. We need not address an issue of validity of
allotment of seat to a person in the Respondent No.3/College for
which the Petitioner is staking claim. In the absence of College
and in absence of any specific challenge in the petition, we
cannot entertain the submissions in this regard.
16. It is emphasized by learned Counsel Mr. S.G. Karlekar that
Petitioner has already incurred disqualification as per Clause of
NEET-UG-2023 which is as under :
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
11.2.4. DISQUALIFICATION FOR ADMISSION
. The candidate who was allotted a seat in any course under
MUHS Nashik in previous year(s) and who vacates/ abandons
it after availing the said seat, has completed such a
period of course which would result into lapse of the said
seat.
. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik shall
take the decision regarding eligibility and granting of
the term of selected candidates. The selection of a
candidate by the Competent Authority at a later date does
not place onus to accord approval for grant of term.
17. The Petitioner was allotted seat in a College at Hingoli for
B.D.S. in 2023-2024 which was abandoned by her. As she was
required to file petition for getting back the documents from the
said College and she was paid the scholarship also, it is apparent
that admission was confirmed and thereafter it was abandoned.
There is every possibility of incurring disqualification. It is up to
the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to take
further action to decide eligibility of the Petitioner. We are not
pointed out any further action taken against her. Simultaneously
we cannot come to definite conclusion that due to
disqualification, Petitioner was ineligible to participate in the
admission process of 2024-2025 and consequentially allotment of
seat to her in the Respondent No.3/College was bad in law. It is
left open for competent authority.
18. We have already recorded that petitioner failed to prove
that she was being denied a seat deliberately and the
Respondent No.3/College is liable for the action. The petitioner is
also failed to make out any rarest of the rare case to issue
direction to create a post for her. The admission process is
regulated by brochure of NEET-UG-2024. We have not come
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
across any provision for creating a seat, albeit in exceptional
circumstances or awarding compensation. In view of Clause
No.1.6 of the brochure, the performance in the entrance test is
valid only for the academic year for which the NEET examinations
were held i.e. 2024-2025. There is no promise for admission for
the subsequent years. We find that no case is made out for
awarding compensation.
19. Petitioner relied on the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha
(supra). The ratio is laid down in paragraph no.12 and 13.
Applying parameters stated in paragraph no.12 and the
paragraph no.12.1, we are of the considered view that petitioner
failed to make out a case that she was illegally denied the
admission and there was no fault on her part.
20. Petitioner further relied on the judgment in the matter of
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital and Research Centre
(supra), Special Leave Petition (C) No.11785/2024;. We have
gone through paragraph no.21 of the judgment. We find that it is
not a fit case to direct creation of a seat for the petitioner for this
academic year.
21. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of
Vansh s/o Prakash Dolas (supra). We have considered paragraph
nos. 22 to 28. In that case appellant was illegally deprived from
his rightful admission in the first year of M.B.B.S. He was
allotted a seat which was cancelled without following due
procedure of law. In that contest referring to various judgment, it
3.WP-12129-2024.odt
was held by the Apex Court that the student was entitled to
restoration of his seat in the next year and the compensation
was also awarded. The facts of the case in hand are
distinguishable. The benefit of the judgment cannot be given to
the petitioner in the present case.
22. Mr. Karlekar relied on the judgment of the Pallavi Manohar
Dalvi (supra). We have considered paragraph no.19 of the
judgment. We have already recorded that the petitioner failed to
report the college in time and the respondent no.3/College
cannot be held liable for any lapses. Further reliance is placed on
the judgment in the matter of Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute
and Others (supra). There is no dispute that brochure is a
complete and composite document for entrance examination,
declaration of result, general instructions and method of
admission. It is binding on the stake holders.
23. We find that we are unable to grant any relief to the
petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
24. Civil Application stands disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
najeeb..
