Pooja Mahajan vs Ayush Department
2021 Latest Caselaw 1210 MP

1            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                       BENCH AT INDORE
                         WP No.20358/2020
             Pooja Mahajan & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.

Indore: Dated:-01/04/2021:-
        Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
        Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the State.
        Shri Rishi Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent

No.3.

Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Heard on interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of petition, the respondents have decided the dates of examination and last date of submission of form is 03/04/2021. The form may be filled up with late fees up to 05/04/2021.

By taking this Court to the order of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.6104/2019 dated 15/10/2019 (Annexure P/13), learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of this order of Delhi High Court, the petitioners were given admission prior to 15/10/2019. Such admissions given in various States have been protected by Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.603/2020, dated 20/02/2020 (Annexure P/14). Since petitioners have been admitted pursuant to an order passed by Delhi High Court and Supreme Court has protected such admissions, petitioners may be provisionally permitted to participate in the examination and by making it clear that its result will be subject to final outcome of this matter.

The prayer is opposed by remaining respondents except respondent No.4.

 2        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                   BENCH AT INDORE
                     WP No.20358/2020

Pooja Mahajan & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.

We have heard the petitioners to great length. During the course of hearing, on a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that passing of NEET examination is statutory and mandatory pre- requisite for admission in the course in question. The petitioners have not challenged the constitutionality of relevant provision which makes it obligatory for the candidate to pass the NEET examination. Thus, the provision which is not under challenge must be read as such. In 2000(4) SCC 285, Molar Mal (dead) through LRs. vs. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., the apex Court opined that when constitutional validity of a provison is not in challenge before the Court, Court must proceed on the footing that the provision, as it stands, is intra vires and interpret the same as such.

This Court in WP No.25157/18 (National Medical College Educational vs. Union of India) passed an order on 14/11/2018 (Annexure R/3) and vacated the interim order and opined that all students need to qualify NEET examination.

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20th February, 2020 (Annexure P/20) protected such students who were admitted in the institution pursuant to any interim order passed by the Court and took admission prior to the last date of admission i.e.15/10/2019. On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any document to show :-

i) The admission of petitioners was pursuant to the order passed by Delhi High Court dated 15/10/2019 (Annexure P/13).

      3         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                         BENCH AT INDORE
                           WP No.20358/2020

Pooja Mahajan & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.

ii) The petitioners were admitted prior to 15/10/2019. Prima facie we are unable to agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were admitted pursuant to order of Delhi High Court which was passed on 15/10/2019 and they got admission prior to 15/10/2019 pursuant to the said order. Thus, petitioners are prima facie not similarly situated qua those students/candidates who were litigants before the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter and for whom protection as a one time measure was granted by the Apex Court.

Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. Interim prayer is rejected.

List this matter for analogous hearing with WP No. 25157/18.

CC as per rules.

     (SUJOY PAUL)                         (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
       JUDGE                                      JUDGE

soumya

         Digitally signed
         by SOUMYA
         RANJAN DALAI
         Date: 2021.04.01
         17:44:09 +05'30'