Rajasthan High Court
Madhu Saini D/O B.S. Saini vs Rajasthan University Of Health ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6207/2020
1. Madhu Saini D/o B.S. Saini, aged 33 years, R/o 6-G10
Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Kota.
2. Kavad Ishwar S/o Jashu Bhai, aged 27 Years, R/o A-25
Ganesh Nagar Society Amroli, Surat, Gujarat.
3. Vinod Kumar Pal S/o Raj Narayan Pal, aged 31 years,
R/o M-19 Plot No. 304, Global City, Palghar,
Maharashtra.
4. Richa Tripathi D/o Rejeshwar Tripathi, aged 41 years,
R/o 365, Civil Lines, Narayan Nagar, Etah, UP.
5. Taak Amrit Kaur S/o Manjit Singh Taak, aged 27 years,
R/o 4, Mahesh Naresh Cooperative Society, Ghodasar,
Ahemedabad, Gujarat.
6. Rahul Vaid S/o Surinder Kumar Vaid, aged 41 years, R/o
B-61A, Defence Colony, Meerut, UP.
7. Umang Kanwar D/o Kuldeep Singh, aged 37 years, R/o
72, Sector No. 1, Trikola Nagar, J and K.
8. Chowdhary Humatalat D/o Munir Azhar, aged 28 years,
R/o Near Old Tidke, Nagpur.
9. Rahul Mehta S/o Amrik Singh Mehta, aged 22 years, R/o
Duplex Banglow, Bhopal M.P.
10. Raj Kamal Grewal S/o Randhir Singh Grewal, aged 32
years, R/o 260/11, Shastri Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.
11. G. Dessai Sidhee Ramesh D/o Ramesh Gauns Dessai,
aged about 34 years, R/o Flat-Fo/1, A Building, Kurtakar
Excellency, Gogal Margo, Goa.
12. Rajat Kumar S/o Chandra Bhan, aged 41 years, R/o
1/101 Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
13. Kunal Vuthoo S/o R.K. Vuthoo, R/o 675/A, Sector-3,
Bhagwati Nagar, Canal Road, Jammu J and K.
14. Chauhan Bhumit Kumar S/o Iswar Lal, aged 28 years,
R/o Jalaram Society, Taluka Gandevi, Navsari, Gujarat.
15. Vishal Vuthoo S/o R.K. Vuthoo, aged 37 years, R/o
675/A, Sector-3, Bhagwati Nagar, Canal Road, Jammu, J
and K.
16. Lalit Chopra S/o Shanti Swaroop Chopra, aged 28 years,
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 09:40:07 PM)
(2 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Housing Colony, Nai Abadi, Gali No. 1, Bhind, M.P.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, through its
Registrar, Sector- 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur.
2. Daswani Dental College, Kota, through its Principal ITB-
19, RIICO Industrial Area, Ranpur, Kota.
3. Dental Council of India, through its Secretary, Awan- E-
Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
4. P.G. Medical/Dental Admission Board 2017, through its
Chairman, Admission Board and Principal and Controller,
SMS Medical College, Jaipur.
----Respondents
CONNECTED WITH
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6233/2021
1. Madhu Saini D/o B.S. Saini, aged 33 years, R/o 6-G10
Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Kota.
2. Kavad Ishwar S/o Jashu Bhai, aged 27 Years, R/o A-25
Ganesh Nagar Society Amroli, Surat, Gujarat.
3. Vinod Kumar Pal S/o Raj Narayan Pal, aged 31 years,
R/o M-19 Plot No. 304, Global City, Palghar,
Maharashtra.
4. Richa Tripathi D/o Rejeshwar Tripathi, aged 41 years,
R/o 365, Civil Lines, Narayan Nagar, Etah, UP.
5. Taak Amrit Kaur S/o Manjit Singh Taak, aged 27 years,
R/o 4, Mahesh Naresh Cooperative Society, Ghodasar,
Ahemedabad, Gujarat.
6. Rahul Vaid S/o Surinder Kumar Vaid, aged 41 years, R/o
B-61A, Defence Colony, Meerut, UP.
7. Umang Kanwar D/o Kuldeep Singh, aged 37 years, R/o
72, Sector No. 1, Trikola Nagar, J and K.
8. Chowdhary Humatalat D/o Munir Azhar, aged 28 years,
R/o Near Old Tidke, Nagpur.
9. Rahul Mehta S/o Amrik Singh Mehta, aged 22 years, R/o
Duplex Banglow, Bhopal M.P.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 09:40:07 PM)
(3 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
10. Raj Kamal Grewal S/o Randhir Singh Grewal, aged 32
years, R/o 260/11, Shastri Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.
11. G. Dessai Sidhee Ramesh D/o Ramesh Gauns Dessai,
aged 34 years, R/o Flat - Fo/1, A Building, Kurtakar
Excellency, Gogal Margo, Goa.
12. Rajat Kumar S/o Chandra Bhan, aged 41 years, R/o
1/101 Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
13. Kunal Vuthoo S/o R.K. Vuthoo, R/o 675/A, Sector-3,
Bhagwati Nagar, Canal Road, Jammu J and K.
14. Chauhan Bhumit Kumar S/o Iswar Lal, aged 28 years,
R/o Jalaram Society, Taluka Gandevi, Navsari, Gujarat.
15. Vishal Vuthoo S/o R.K. Vuthoo, aged 37 years, R/o
675/A, Sector -3, Bhagwati Nagar, Canal Road, Jammu J
and K.
16. Lalit Chopra S/o Shanti Swaroop Chopra, aged 28 years,
Housing Colony, Nai Abadi, Gali No. 1, Bhind, M.P.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dental Council of India, through its Secretary, Awan- E-
Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. The National Board of Examination, Medicare
Enclave, Ansari Nagar Ring Road, New Delhi -
110029.
3. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, through its
Registrar, Sector- 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur.
4. Daswani Dental College, Kota, through its Principal ITB-
19, RIICO Industrial Area, Ranpur, Kota.
5. P.G. Medical/Dental Admission Board 2017, through its
Chairman, Admission Board and Principal and
Controller, SMS Medical College, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr.Adv.
(through VC) assisted by Mr.S.S.Hora,
Adv., Mr.Arpit Sharma, Adv. and
Mr.Kartikey Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ajay Shukla Adv., Mr.Ravi Chirania,
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 09:40:07 PM)
(4 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Adv., Mr.Harshal Tholia, Adv. on
behalf of Dr.V.B.Sharma, AAG.,
Mr.Angad Mirdha, Adv. & Mr.Abhinav
Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
JUDGMENT
Judgment reserved on : 4th July, 2022
REPORTABLE
Date of Judgment : 3rd August, 2022
By the Court:
As the issues involved in both the present two writ petitions
are common, therefore, these writ petitions are decided by this
common judgment.
2. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6207/2020 has been filed by
the petitioners, who are students of Master in Dental Surgery (in
short "MDS"), seeking direction against the respondent-Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences (in short "the respondent-
University") to permit the petitioners to fill online examination
forms and to undertake & participate in MDS Final Year (Main)
Examination to be held in June, 2020.
3. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6233/2021 has been filed by
the same petitioners seeking declaration of prospective application
of the notifications dated 01.09.2017 & 05.11.2017. The
petitioners have also prayed that their admission has been made
in a valid manner in MDS course in the year 2017 without
requirement of being taken through NEET PG. The petitioners have
further prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders/letters
dated 12.09.2018 & 08.02.2019 with the declaration that the
petitioners were validly admitted by Daswani Dental College, Kota
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(5 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
(in short "the respondent-College") and the petitioners are not
liable to be discharged from the MDS course.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6207/2020:
4. The facts, in nutshell, as pleaded by the petitioners in the
writ petition are that the petitioners were admitted in MDS Course
by the respondent-college in May, 2017 and the petitioners
completed the said course in the respondent-College in the year
2020. The examination of MDS course has to take place after
completion of the course and the same was required to be
conducted by the respondent-University in the year 2020, after
completion of three years from the date of admission.
5. The petitioners have pleaded that they were required to
submit their dissertation in the branch/specialty in the MDS course
and as such all the petitioners submitted their dissertation before
the respondent-University in the month of January, 2020. The
dissertation, so prepared by the petitioners, was sent by the
respondent-College to the respondent-University. The respondent-
University issued a notice dated 05.06.2020 for conducting MDS
Final Year (Main) Examination to be held in the month of June,
2020 for MDS Batch of 2017 and applications were to be
submitted online from 09.06.2020 to 15.06.2020 and the
examination was to start from 25.06.2020.
6. The petitioners have further pleaded that in the batch of
MDS for the year 2017, which had a strength of 20 students, only
four students were given enrollment numbers and the petitioners,
who were 16 in number, were not provided with enrollment
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(6 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
numbers and as such, in absence of enrollment number, the
petitioners could not fill in their online application forms.
7. The petitioners have pleaded that when they enquired as
why enrolment numbers were not issued to them, they were
verbally informed by the authorities of respondent-University that
since they had not been admitted in MDS course through
counseling held in the year 2017, they were not issued enrolment
numbers.
8. The petitioners have further pleaded that the respondent-
College had been undertaking and teaching MDS course since the
year 2014 and for the batches of the years 2014, 2015 & 2016,
every private dental college could directly admit students in PG-
MDS course without any examination and without any counseling,
on the basis of passing out BDS course and such students had
already appeared in the examinations for the years 2017, 2018 &
2019, conducted by the respondent-University.
9. The petitioners have pleaded that in the year 2017,
admissions were to be made through NEET PG, however, due to
cut-off prescribed by NEET of 50 percentile, the seats in various
dental colleges remained vacant in the counseling and such seats
were filled up by all the private colleges.
10. The petitioners have also pleaded that full disclosure of the
students admitted in MDS course in the year 2017 was made by
the respondent-College and on submission of enrollment forms on
28.12.2017, the respondent-University had not raised any
objection and even provisional enrollment numbers were given to
the petitioners by the respondent-University.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(7 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
11. The petitioners have pleaded that in spite of completing
three year course of their study, the denial of the respondent-
University to issue enrollment number and preventing the
petitioners to participate in the examination was an arbitrary act
and as such, the petitioners filed the writ petition praying for
direction to allow them to fill online examination forms and to
participate in MDS Final Year (Main) Examination to be held in
June, 2020.
12. The coordinate Bench of this Court, at the time of admission
of the writ petition on 15.06.2020, passed an order that the
petitioners be permitted to provisionally fill in the examination
forms to participate in the Master of Dental Surgery Final Year
(Main) Examination (for Batch 2017) June 2020.
13. This Court on 06.09.2021 allowed impleadment application
filed by the Dental Council of India (in short "the DCI"). The
petitioners, after passing of the interim order dated 15.06.2020 by
the coordinate Bench of this Court, filed an application for
impleadment of NEET PG Medical/Dental Admission Board-2017 as
party respondent in the writ petition and this Court on 14.09.2021
allowed the said application of impleadment.
14. The respondent-University in its reply, apart from merits of
the matter, also raised preliminary objection with regard to filing
of the writ petition at a belated stage by the petitioners without
challenging the order of discharge dated 12.09.2018 passed by
the DCI. The respondent-University also raised preliminary
objection about non-impleadment of necessary parties like DCI &
NEET Counseling Board and passing of interim order in absence of
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(8 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
necessary parties without challenging the basic order of discharge
issued by the DCI.
15. The respondent-University has pleaded that after receiving
the letter from NEET PG Admission Board dated 06.07.2018 and
letter of the Director of Medical Education, Jaipur dated
19.07.2018, the respondent-DCI directed the respondent-College
to discharge 16 students and if such students were not
discharged, then the respondent-DCI was to take action under
Section 10B of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 and Section
16A of the Dentists Act, 1948. The respondent-University has
averred that letter/order dated 12.09.2018 was neither put to
challenge by the respondent-College nor by the students-
petitioners.
16. The respondent-University has also taken a plea that the
respondent-College has committed a fraud by admitting new
students, without any authority and permission from the
Counseling Board and as such eight new students were admitted
by the respondent-College, as per the list enclosed by the DCI in
its letter dated 12.09.2018.
17. The respondent-University has also disputed the fact of
submission of thesis/dissertation by all the petitioners and in fact
the University authorities found that only four students were
enrolled with the respondent-University and the remaining 16
students were not verified by the Counseling Board and the
respondent-College submitted more than one dissertation of few
students and NIL in the case of many. The respondent-University
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(9 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
had given a letter dated 12.06.2020 to the respondent-College as
in what manner dissertation was submitted illegally.
18. The respondent-University, on merits of the matter, has
submitted that admission of all the petitioners was granted
without such candidates having passed NEET qualifying
examination and the respondent-College on its own could not have
granted admission.
19. The Chairman, PG Medical/Dental Admission Board, 2017 -
respondent No.4 (in short "the respondent-Board") has filed reply
to the writ petition and apart from raising preliminary objections,
has also filed reply on merits of the writ petition. The respondent-
Board has taken a specific stand that out of 20 seats, the State
NEET Medical & Dental Admission Counseling Board had allotted
four seats to the candidates in the respondent-College in the mop-
up round and on the remaining 16 seats of the MDS Course, the
petitioners were admitted by the respondent-College at College
level, after mop-up round. The eligibility of the petitioners was not
verified by the State NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission
Counseling Board, 2017 in terms of the NEET PG qualification and
all the candidates, who were admitted at the College level, were
not NEET qualified and it was necessary for the NEET PG Medical
and Dental Admission Counseling Board to adhere to the
qualifying percentile declared by the National Board of
Examination (in short "the NBE").
20. The respondent-Board has submitted that admission of the
petitioners, after mop-up round, from the candidates who were
not registered with NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(10 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Counseling Board was not legal in any manner and the
Information Bulletin of 2017 of the NBE clearly provided that
admissions were to be made only from the candidates, who were
NEET qualified.
21. The petitioners also filed additional affidavit whereby certain
documents were placed on record including the minutes of various
meetings of PG Medical/Dental Admission Board. The respondent-
University also filed counter to the additional affidavit and also
placed on record certain documents relating to the
correspondences entered between the respondent-DCI and other
statutory bodies.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6233/2021:
22. The petitioners, apart from narrating the facts relating to
their admission in the respondent-College, have mentioned in the
facts of their writ petition that the respondent-DCI had issued a
gazette notification dated 01.09.2017 whereby Dental Council of
India, Master of Dental Surgery Course Regulations, 2017 were
enacted and these Regulations have only prospective application
and cannot be made retrospective to the admissions made, before
coming into force of the said gazette notification. The petitioners
have also pleaded that the impugned orders/letters dated
12.09.2018 & 08.02.2019 are invalid, void & illegal and the
petitioners cannot be discharged from the respondent-College,
where they have been pursuing their studies.
23. The petitioners, in the grounds raised in the writ petition,
have challenged the orders dated 12.09.2018 & 08.02.2019 as ex-
facie illegal & contrary to the principles of natural justice, being
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(11 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
passed after 17 months or 22 months of elapsing of courses. The
petitioners have challenged the notification dated 01.09.2017 to
the effect that the same cannot be made applicable
retrospectively, as the seats were already filled in May, 2017.
24. The petitioners have challenged that lowering of percentile in
NEET MDS results itself shows the intent behind the same, as the
seats were not to be left vacant in MDS Course and as such 16
seats, which were vacant after counseling, were rightly given to
the petitioners.
25. The petitioners also derived the source of power to the
respondent-College to grant admission on the basis of a meeting
of PG Medical/Dental Admission Board, 2017 as the total seats,
which were left vacant after mop-up round in different colleges,
were 201 and since the respondent-Board had given a list of 36
students, as such, the respondent-College granted them
admission in a proper manner.
26. The petitioners have also staked their claim on the basis of
remaining vacant seats to be filled and not to waste such seats, as
per the direction issued by the Apex Court from time to time.
27. The respondent-College has filed reply to the writ petition
and has pleaded that no illegality and irregularity has been
committed by them and there has been no profiteering in filling
the vacant seats and the candidates were admitted from open
quota, after the mop-up round.
28. The respondent-College has pleaded that the Regulations of
2017, which provide for NEET and eligibility regarding admission
through NEET, were not in existence till the process of admission
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(12 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
was over on 31.05.2017, as the Regulations of 2017 were notified
only on 05.11.2017.
29. The respondent-College has pleaded that the earlier
Regulations of 2007 provided BDS degree as the basic criteria and
all the admitted candidates were duly eligible after the mop-up
round and since the seats were vacant, even after the mop-up
round, the same could be filled from open quota instead of NEET.
30. The respondent-DCI has filed counter affidavit and raised a
preliminary submission that the admissions so made of the
petitioners by the respondent-College have been treated to be
void ab-initio and their admissions to MDS course cannot be
termed as legal, in terms of the Regulations of DCI and the
judgments passed by the Apex Court.
31. The respondent-DCI has pleaded that all the dental colleges
were requested to upload the details of students admitted by them
in MDS Courses for the academic session 2017-18 on DCI website
by 07.06.2017 and the respondent-College uploaded the details of
20 students on DCI website on 07.06.2017 and also sent an email
on 07.06.2017 and furnished the list of 20 students admitted in
MDS Course.
32. The respondent-DCI vide letter dated 16.04.2018 forwarded
the list of 20 students, uploaded/furnished by the respondent-
College, to the respondent-University for its verification and copy
was endorsed to the Director, Directorate of Medical Education,
Jaipur for necessary action. The Directorate of Medical Education,
vide their letter dated 19.07.2018, forwarded a copy of the letter
dated 06.07.2018 of the Chairman, NEET PG (Medical/Dental)
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(13 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Admission Board, 2017 and Principal & Controller, Medical College,
Jaipur verifying the details of MDS students admitted in the
respondent-College and informed the respondent-DCI that the
students at S.No.1, 2, 4 & 13 were admitted by the Board and
information of the rest of the students was not available with
them.
33. The respondent-DCI in its meeting held on 23.08.2018
considered the letter dated 19.07.2018 of the Directorate of
Medical Education and decided to discharge 16 students. The said
decision was communicated to the respondent-College on
12.09.2018, followed by its reminders dated 31.10.2018 &
08.02.2019 whereby the Principal of the respondent-College was
requested to intimate/confirm the status of discharge of 16
students admitted in MDS Course and the respondent-DCI further
wrote to the Chairman, NEET PG Medical/Dental Admission Board,
2017 with regard to the status of 16 students as whether they
were discharged from the respondent-College or not as repeated
requests were made by the respondent-DCI to take necessary
action.
34. The respondent-DCI, after various letters written to different
authorities received letter dated 24.07.2019 from the Chairman,
NEET PG Medical/Dental Admission Board, 2017, whereby 15
admissions were said to be made of different candidates from
unregistered candidates, after the mop-up round was over and
such admissions being made at the College level itself allegedly in
compliance of the decision No.2 of the meeting dated 29.05.2017
of the respondent-Board.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(14 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
35. The respondent-DCI has averred that the respondent-College
vide their letter dated 14.06.2017 (received to them on
23.06.2020) furnished a list of 20 students admitted in MDS
Course. The Executive Committee of the respondent-DCI in its
meeting held on 02.09.2020 considered the letter dated
14.06.2017 of the respondent-College and issued a show cause
notice to the respondent-College for taking action against them
under Section 16A of the Dentists Act, 1948 and stoppage of
admissions under Section 11A of the Dental Council of India
(Establishment of New Dental Colleges Opening of New or Higher
Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in
Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 as there was gross ambiguity
in the details of students uploaded on DCI website, list sent on
07.06.2017 and the list of students received in the DCI on
23.06.2020, since the respondent-College had replaced the names
and details of eight students with other existing students,
admitted in MDS Course and the names of such 8 students were
given by the respondent-DCI in the counter affidavit.
36. The respondent-DCI has pleaded that the respondent-College
had sent a letter and gave explanation about ambiguity in respect
of the details of the students admitted in MDS Course and
informed the respondent-DCI that the College authorities
uploaded the list of students on DCI web portal but eight students
had not joined/not reported but their details were uploaded before
completion of admission process by mistake. The respondent-
College took a plea that they admitted new students to fill up the
vacant seats on the basis of minutes of the meeting of the
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(15 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Chairman, NEET PG Medical/Dental Admission Board dated
29.05.2017 and the respondent-College could not make changes
on DCI web portal because the respondent-DCI had locked the
web portal to make any changes.
37. The respondent-DCI has pleaded that the Directorate of
Medical Education, Jaipur and the respondent-University were also
asked to confirm as whether these students were admitted or not
in MDS Course for the academic session 2017-18 and the
respondent-University clarified and stated that out of 20 MDS
students, list sent by the respondent-College for enrolment for the
academic session 2017-18, only four students were found in the
list received from the Controller, NEET PG Medical/Dental
Admission Board, 2017 and the remaining 16 students were not
found and five students were not qualified in NEET MDS Course,
as per NEET scorecard.
38. The respondent-DCI has further submitted that selection
procedure for admission to Post Graduate Dental Course is
envisaged in the Revised DCI MDS Course Regulations, 2007 and
further an Ordinance was promulgated by the Central Government
on 24.05.2016 providing mode and manner for conducting NEET
and the same was repealed by the Dentist (Amendment) Act,
2016, which provides for uniform entrance examination.
39. The respondent-DCI has submitted that the Ordinance as
well as Dentist (Amendment) Act, 2016 clearly mandated that
uniform entrance examination, to all the dental educational
institutions, at the undergraduate level and post-graduate level,
was to be conducted.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(16 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
40. The respondent-DCI has also taken a plea that the Revised
MDS Course Regulations, 2017 were also framed in exercise of the
power conferred by Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 with the
previous approval of the Central Government for maintaining
uniform standard of dental education and admission procedure in
all the dental colleges in the country including private colleges.
41. The respondent-PG Medical/Dental Admission Board, 2017
has filed reply to the writ petition and has in fact reiterated the
same facts, as pleaded in the reply filed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.6207/2020. The stand of the respondent-Board has been very
specific that the State NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission
Counseling Board, 2017 had allotted four seats to the candidates
in the respondent-College in the mop-up round and the petitioners
were admitted by the respondent-College at the college level after
mop-up round was conducted by the respondent-Board from
unregistered candidates i.e. the candidates who were not
registered with the State NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission
Counseling Board, 2017 and eligibility of the petitioners was not
verified by the State NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission
Counseling Board, 2017 and the onus was on the respondent-
College to admit only NEET PG qualified candidates.
42. The respondent-Board has also filed additional affidavit to
clarify the stand of the Board in relation to the decision taken on
29.05.2017. It has been pleaded in the additional affidavit that
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) has been prescribed
as the single window eligibility-cum-entrance examination for PG
Courses (Medical & Dental) in Government as well as in Private
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(17 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Dental Colleges and the NEET Examination is conducted by the
National Board of Examinations (NBE), which is followed by
multiple rounds of counseling conducted by the State Counseling
Boards on the basis of marks secured in the NEET Examination.
43. It is further pleaded by the respondent-Board that the NEET-
MDS Information Booklet for admission to MDS 2017 Session was
issued by the NBE in September, 2016, wherein detailed
provisions and directions regarding examination including the
eligibility criteria, scheme of examination & counseling,
instructions, etc. were given to the different candidates. The said
information booklet clearly mentioned that no other entrance
examination, either at the State or Institution Level, shall be valid
for the MDS course, as per the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said
information booklet specifically mentioned under Clause 3.2 that
appearance in the NEET MDS, 2017 would not confer any
automatic rights to secure a PG MDS Seat and the selection and
admission was subject to fulfilling the admission criteria.
44. The said affidavit further states that the eligibility criteria for
the NEET-MDS Entrance Examination has been provided under
Clause 4 of the Information Booklet and a candidate was to obtain
the minimum qualifying score, as prescribed, in the NEET Entrance
Examination. The said affidavit further clarifies that the seats are
to be allotted on the basis of merit list prepared in accordance
with the marks secured in the NEET Examination and it should not
be inferred as a direction to the Colleges to give admission by
overlooking the basic essential eligibility criteria, prescribed by the
Government of India.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(18 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
45. The respondent-College has filed a counter affidavit to the
affidavit filed by the respondent-Board and it has been reiterated
that prior to 2017, only eligibility for admission to MDS Course
was as per the earlier DCI Regulations of 2017 and in the year
2017, no NEET qualified candidates were made available to the
College, as per the decision of the respondent-Board and vacuum
was left by the Authorities in regulating examination and they
failed to provide candidates and as such the respondent-College
has already paid Rs.10 lakhs, as penalty imposed by the
respondent-University for clerical mistakes committed by the Staff.
46. The respondent-Board by the additional affidavit filed on
06.04.2022 has placed on record the copy of NEET-MDS 2017
Advertisement, NEET-MDS 2017 Information Bulletin issued by the
NBE, NEET-MDS 2017 Instruction Booklet for State Dental PG
seats issued by Chairman, NEET PG Admission/Counseling Board
2021 and minutes of the meeting of PG Medical & Dental
Admission Board, 2017 held in the chamber of Chairman,
Admission Board and Principal & Controller, SMS Medical College,
Jaipur on various dates starting from February, 2017 to May,
2017.
47. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of
respondent-University and they have raised preliminary objection
of filing present writ petitions by the students/petitioners for
getting the admission legalized. The respondent-University stated
that the respondent-College, by not challenging the orders
dated 12.09.2018 & 08.02.2019 passed by the respondent-DCI,
has accepted the admission to be illegal. The writ petition is
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(19 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
alleged to be suffering from delay and laches as the orders were
issued on 12.09.2018 & 08.02.2019 giving directions to discharge
the students but the respondent-College allowed the students/
petitioners to complete the course and did not challenge the
orders issued by the respondent-DCI.
48. The respondent-University has taken a plea that the
petitioners have filed the writ petition in a collusive manner as the
documents annexed with the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6207/2020
were provided by the respondent-College and when objections
regarding concealment and not filing the orders of discharge were
raised in the reply to the writ petition, then the same documents
were provided by the respondent-College to the petitioners, who
now have challenged the same orders in the present writ petition
and as such fraud has been played upon the Court by the
respondent-College and the petitioners. The respondent-University
had demanded the information regarding NEET scores of the
petitioners from the respondent-College vide letter dated
02.08.2018 and when the respondent-College did not provide the
NEET scores, then the information was sought from the NEET PG
Counseling Board, 2017 and as such the respondent-University
had acted swiftly in the matter.
49. The respondent-University has taken a plea that NEET PG
Counseling Board, 2017 in response to the request made, by the
respondent-University, provided the score cards of seven students
out of 16 students, in which it was found that out of seven
students only two were NEET qualified and the remaining five
students did not have the minimum percentile to qualify the NEET
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(20 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Examination and even the remaining nine students did not appear
in the NEET PG Examination, 2017 and as far as seven students
are concerned, only two students are NEET qualified.
50. The respondent-University has submitted that fake NEET
scores were mentioned by the petitioners whereas they did not
appear in the NEET-2017 Examination and as such the
comparative chart has been reproduced by the respondent-
University in the reply to the writ petition where fake information
was furnished by the petitioners.
51. The respondent-University has found that out of 16 students,
they received NEET scores of petitioner No.2, 5, 7 and 12 to 15
from the NEET Counseling Board and details which were provided
by the NEET Counseling Board of the marks of the petitioners, was
at variance, as per the list provided along with the affidavit as well
as the enrollment form filed by the petitioners with the writ
petition.
52. The respondent-University has taken a plea that the
Information Bulletin, issued by the NEET Counselling Board, 2017,
had provided the qualifying criteria under condition No.13.1, and
the general instructions, terms and conditions under condition
No.3.2 provided the eligibility and as per the said eligibility, the
petitioners were not qualified to pursue the MDS Course.
53. The respondent-University has pleaded that the respondent-
College has created two letters of the same date i.e. 07.06.2017
and by the first letter, a list was uploaded on DCI Online Portal and
by the second letter, different list was submitted to the DCI and
thereafter by letter dated 14.06.2017 (received on 23.06.2020)
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(21 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
another list was submitted to the DCI in which 8 students were
replaced. The respondent-University has given the list of the
students whose names were replaced and as such, it is stated that
the respondent-College has committed a forgery.
54. The respondent-University has also pleaded that while filling
the enrollment form, the students are required to sign the
declaration that if any information is found false or incorrect, then
such student can be disqualified by the respondent-University and
the petitioners have provided false information to the respondent-
University that they have appeared in the NEET Examination and
as such the petitioners due to their act and conduct do not
deserve any indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
55. The respondent-University has also clarified with regard to
issuance of order dated 17.06.2021 whereby the respondent-
College was asked to deposit a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs for making
illegal admission in the MDS Course. The respondent-University
has taken a plea that the Academic Council of the respondent-
University in its meeting dated 26.08.2021 has decided to
withdraw the order dated 17.06.2021 to the extent of issuance of
MDS degrees of the petitioners subject to final outcome of the writ
petition but has maintained the penalty. However, the respondent-
University, while imposing the penalty, has not legalized the
admissions.
56. The respondent-University has also submitted that in view of
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Ahad
and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2021
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(22 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
SCC Online SC 627, the illegal admissions of the petitioners
cannot be regularized and no sympathetic view may be taken and
the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
57. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava has made
the following submissions on behalf of the petitioners:-
(1) The admissions of the petitioners were not illegal and no
violation of any settled law relating to admission has taken
place since NEET was made compulsory for admission only
on 05.09.2017.
(2) There is no allegation of violation of the Regulations of 2007
qua admission of the petitioners, as neither the letter of
discharge, issued by the respondent-DCI nor the counter
affidavit filed by the DCI, state so.
(3) The impugned letter of discharge is not based on the ground
of the petitioners not being NEET qualified or their
admissions were made in any illegal or void manner and as
such the reason of discharge of the petitioners, is neither
relevant nor justifiable.
(4) The respondent did not issue any show cause notice or
afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at any
point of time, before issuing the discharge order and the
same reflects arbitrariness and total non application of mind
by the respondent-DCI before taking any action.
(5) The verification of admissions of the petitioners is yet to be
concluded and yet the discharge order has been passed
without completing the process of verification.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(23 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
(6) The admissions of the petitioners are not by way of backdoor
entry and the respondent-Board's decision dated 29.05.2017
permitted the consideration of non NEET registered
candidates, after the mop up round and as such, the decision
of the respondent-Board was acted upon by other similarly
situated Colleges, whereby vacant seats were allotted after
the mop up round.
(7) The petitioners have not secured admission in an illegal
manner and they are not guilty of any backdoor admission
by playing fraud or affecting any other candidate's right.
(8) The petitioners have completed their three years of study,
submitted their dissertation and have also written their final
examination, as such, time and efforts made by them should
not be allowed to go waste.
58. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
a. Ranjan Purohit & Ors. V. RUHS & Ors., reported in
2012 (10) SCC 770.
b. Priya Gupta V. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., reported in
2012 (7) SCC 433.
c. Abha George V. AIIMS, reported in 2022 SCC Online
DEL 366.
d. Ashok Chand Singhvi V. University of Jodhpur,
reported in 1989 (1) SCC 399.
e. A Sudha V. University of Mysore and Anr., reported in
1987 (4) SCC 537.
f. Rajendra Prasad Mathur V. Karnataka University and
Anr., reported in 1986 Supp SCC 740.
g. Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust and Anr. V.
Union of India and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online
SC 137.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(24 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
h. Union of India V. Federation of Self-financed Ayurvedic
Colleges, Punjab & Ors., reported in 2020 (12) SCC
115.
59. Learned counsel-Mr. Abhinav Sharma appearing for the
respondent-College has submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the respondent-College, while admitting the
petitioners from open quota after mop-up round, as per the
prevalent Regulations of 2007 and as per the decision of the NEET
PG Dental and Medical Admissions Board, 2017. Learned counsel
for the respondent-College submitted that the DCI MDS Course
Regulations, 2017 provides for NEET and eligibility regarding
admission through NEET was not in existence till the completion of
admission process on 31.05.2017. Learned counsel for the
respondent-College submitted that prior to 2016 the only eligibility
to MDS Course was as per the Regulations of 2007 and the
respondent-College has followed the norms for admission, which
were prevalent at the time of granting admissions.
60. Learned counsel-Mr. Angad Mirdha, appearing for the
respondent-DCI, has submitted that the admissions granted to the
petitioners are per se illegal and any admission made, of any
candidate who has not qualified the NEET examination, cannot be
treated as a regular admission.
61. Learned counsel for the respondent-DCI further submitted
that the respondent-College had not only furnished incorrect
information to the respondent-DCI but had also not discharged the
students in spite of decision taken by the respondent-DCI, which
was duly communicated to the respondent-College. Learned
counsel for the respondent-DCI submitted that in spite of letters of
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(25 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
discharge of students issued against the petitioners, the
respondent-College is guilty of continuously violating the law and
in most illegal and mischievous manner, the respondent-College
had permitted the students to complete the three year course.
62. Learned counsel for the respondent-DCI argued that filing of
the writ petition by the petitioners and seeking interim directions,
in absence of necessary party i.e. DCI and by concealing
important facts from the Court, does not entitle the petitioners to
get any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
63. Learned counsel for the respondent-DCI has placed reliance
on the following judgments:-
a. Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2
SCC 59.
b. Dilip Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2010) 2
SCC 114.
c. Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 7
SCC 353.
d. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jainarayan Chouksey &
Ors. reported in (2016) 9 SCC 412.
e. Order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Apex Court in
the case of Sankalp Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. UOI &
Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2159.
f. Deepanshu Bhadoriya & Ors. Vs. MCI & Ors. (LPA
No.581/2019) decided on 09.09.2021 by the Delhi
High Court.
g. Abdul Ahad and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 627.
64. Learned counsel-Mr. Ravi Chirania, appearing for the
respondent-University, has submitted that the petitioners in
collusion with the respondent-College, while concealing the order
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(26 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
dated 12.09.2018, got the interim order dated 15.06.2020 in their
favour from this Court, which reflects serious misconduct of the
petitioners/ students of the respondent-College. Learned counsel
for the respondent-University argued that both the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners are glaring example of concealment,
misrepresentation and fraud with the Authorities as well as with
this Court.
65. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further
argued that the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence from
this Court as forged documents have been placed on record and
the respondent-College initially uploaded different list on the web
portal of the DCI and then they replaced four students from the
list so uploaded on the web portal of the respondent-DCI. The
respondent-College before filing of the writ petitions created
another letter dated 14.06.2017 enclosing the list of the students
wherein again eight students were replaced from the list uploaded
on the DCI web portal.
66. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted
that the petitioners are also involved in committing fraud upon the
Authorities as they submitted false information about appearing in
the NEET Examination and their NEET scores in the enrollment
forms.
67. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted
that the petitioners are not NEET qualified and their admissions
were made after the last cut off date i.e. 31.05.2017, without
NEET PG scores and the same is an outcome of the collusion
between the petitioners/students and the respondent-College.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(27 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
68. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further
submitted that as per the Information Booklet, National Board of
Examinations (NBE) was to conduct the NEET examination and a
candidate was required to have minimum of marks at 50 th
percentile in NEET PG MDS Examination and then only admissions
were to be given as per the strict merit.
69. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
a. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jai Narayan Chouksey &
Ors., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 421.
b. Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust and Anr. V.
Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 1160.
70. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
71. This Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties,
finds following facts to be undisputed:-
(a) The petitioners were admitted in MDS Course in the
respondent-College in May, 2017 i.e. 31.05.2017.
(b) Information booklet for NEET for admission to MDS Course,
2017 was issued by the National Board of Educations (NBE)
in September, 2016.
(c) The Information booklet had clearly provided that the
candidate was to obtain minimum qualifying score, as
provided in the NEET Entrance Examination.
(d) The NEET MDS, 2017 advertisement was issued and the
Information booklet for State Dental Post Graduate seats
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(28 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
was also issued by the Chairman, NEET PG
Admission/Counseling Board.
(e) The petitioners filed first writ petition - S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.6207/2020 seeking direction to fill the online examination
forms and to participate in the MDS Final Examination held
on May, 2020.
(f) The petitioners did not implead the Dental Council of India
and NEET PG Admission/Counseling Board, 2017 as party-
respondent in the said writ petition.
(g) The petitioners did not make any reference of orders/letters
dated 12.09.2018 and 08.02.2019 issued by the Dental
Council of India.
(h) The petitioners did not secure the requisite cut-off marks in
NEET PG Examination, 2017 and they were granted
admission by the College after the mop-up round was over.
(i) The National Board of Examinations (NBE) issued the
scorecards of the petitioners and as per the revised All India
MDS Ranking, all the petitioners were not found to be
qualified.
(j) The enrollment forms, filled in by the petitioners in the
University, reflected the marks of the petitioners and the
same were at variance/different, as per the record available
with the NEET PG Admission/Counseling Board.
(k) The respondent-College had uploaded the list of the
students, admitted in the MDS Course on the Dental Council
of India's web portal on 07.06.2017.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(29 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
(l) The respondent-College vide letter dated 07.06.2017
submitted the list to the Dental Council of India, which was
received on 14.06.2017 and the respondent-College had
replaced four students from the list, as uploaded on the web
portal of the Dental Council of India.
(m) The respondent-College sent a letter dated 14.06.2017,
which was received by the Dental Council of India on
23.06.2017 whereby another list of eight students was
enclosed and eight students were replaced from the list, as
uploaded on the web portal of the Dental Council of India on
07.06.2017.
(n) The Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its
meeting dated 23.08.2018 decided to discharge the students
and copy of the said decision was sent to the respondent-
College.
(o) On 12.09.2018, the respondent-College was directed to
discharge 16 students, who were admitted illegally in the
MDS Course in the year 2017.
(p) The respondent-College, in spite of receiving the letters
dated 23.06.2018, 12.09.2018, 13.10.2018 & 08.02.2019 to
discharge the petitioners, permitted the petitioners to
undertake the course and did not challenge the said orders.
(q) The NEET PG Admission/Counseling Board on 15.07.2020
informed the respondent-University that out of 16 students-
the petitioners, seven students had appeared in the NEET PG
Examination, 2017 and only two students had secured the
minimum percentile and the remaining seven students did
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(30 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
not appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2017 and out of 16
students, only two students, who secured minimum
percentile, were granted admission after the cut-off date.
72. The main issue before this Court is to consider the eligibility
of the petitioners to get admission in MDS Course, 2017 and
whether the petitioners could continue in the said Course without
being admitted in a legal and proper manner.
73. This Court finds that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) was conducted by the National Board of Examinations
(NBE) for admission to the MDS Course, 2017 session and the
NEET-MDS was an eligibility-cum-ranking examination, as a single
window entrance examination for Dental PG Course and no other
entrance examination, either conducted at the State or the
institution level, was valid for entry to MDS Course, as per the
Dentists Act, 1948. The National Board of Examinations (NBE) had
to conduct a computer based test and the examination centres for
said test were located in 41 cities of the country.
74. This Court finds that the National Board of Examinations
(NBE) issued Information booklet for NEET-MDS for admission to
MDS Courses, 2017 which provided a qualifying criteria in Clause
No.13.1 of the Information booklet wherein it was specifically
provided that as per the Dental Counsel of India Revised MDS
Course (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2007 in order to be
eligible for admission to any Post Graduate Dental Course in a
particular academic year, it was necessary for a candidate to
obtain minimum marks at 50th percentile in the National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test and for the candidates of SC/ST & OBC, the
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(31 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
minimum marks were at 40th percentile and further if sufficient
candidates did not secure the minimum marks, as prescribed in
the NEET examination, the Central Government in consultation
with the Dental Council of India was having discretion to lower the
minimum marks.
75. This Court finds that meetings of PG Medical/Dental
Admission Board, 2017 were held from time to time and the
members of the Board in the meetings held from 17.05.2017 to
21.05.2017 discussed the letter of Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India dated 11.05.2017 whereby the
minimum qualifying percentiles had been lowered category-wise
and members of the Board concluded that at the end of the
second round of counseling (offline), registration would be opened
for applications to State NEET PG Dental Counseling, 2017 and
fresh applications were to be invited. The Board also took decision
that second round for offline MDS (Dental) Course was to be
started and completed on 18.05.2017 and the seat matrix had
total of 120 seats vacant for the MDS (Dental) Post Graduate
Course.
76. This Court further finds that the PG Medical/Dental
Admission Board, 2017, in its meeting held on 27.05.2017,
discussed the letter received from the Dental Colleges regarding
admission on residue vacancies in the Colleges and it was decided
to fill up various categories of seats, as per the merit, with the
Non-Resident Indian (NRI) Quota to be filled up first.
77. This Court further finds that PG Medical/Dental Admission
Board, 2017, in its meeting held on 29.07.2017, took a decision
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(32 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
that the candidates, who were already registered with the State
NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission & Counseling Board, 2017
and could not fill up the registration forms for mop-up round,
scheduled to be held on 29th & 30th May, 2017, by the stipulated
date of 27th May, 2017, could be allowed to fill in the applications
and the same was to be considered for the mop-up round.
However, the applications of those candidates who were not
registered with the State NEET PG Medical & Dental Admission &
Counseling Board, 2017 and wished to participate in the mop-up
round, were to be considered only after completion of the mop-up
round.
78. This Court, on a plain reading of the said decision of the
Admission Board, finds that window was open for the candidates
to fill in the registration forms for mop-up round and such
candidates, who were permitted to be registered, by filling in their
application forms for mop-up round and other candidates, who
were not registered and could not fill up their application forms
and wanted to participate in the mop-up round, were to be
considered only after completion of the mop-up round.
79. This Court finds that the said decision of the Admission
Board nowhere had left it open for any College on their own to
admit the students after the mop-up round was over.
80. The source of power to grant admission to the petitioners by
the respondent-College is on the basis of own interpretation of the
respondent-College by admitting the students without such
students being registered with the State NEET PG Medical and
Dental Admission & Counseling Board.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(33 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
81. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-College that since sufficient number of vacant seats
were available, as such the respondent-College in a bonafide
manner exercised its right to fill the vacant seats, this Court finds
that the said submission cannot be accepted by this Court as
neither the petitioners were registered with the State NEET PG
Dental Admission/Counseling Board nor they were NEET qualified
and the same was a mandatory requirement.
82. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
there was no illegality committed in granting admission to the
petitioners and NEET qualification having been made compulsory
for admission only w.e.f. 05.09.2017, as such the admissions of
the petitioners are to be treated as legal, this Court finds that the
admissions for the Academic Year 2017-18 were required to be
made, as per the directions issued by the Dental Council of India
through the NEET PG Examination, which was conducted by the
National Board of Examinations (NBE). This Court finds that the
Information Booklet, supplied to each candidate including the
petitioners had made it very clear that there was a single window
entrance examination for admission in the MDS Courses and a
candidate was required to secure the minimum marks/percentile.
83. There is no dispute with regard to applicability of Regulations
of 2017, which had been made applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2017,
whereby Regulation 6 provides that there will be uniform NEET for
admission to the PG Dental Course in each Academic Year, to be
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(34 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) or any
other authority, appointed by the Central Government.
84. The moot question before this Court is to consider as
whether prior to enactment of Regulations of 2017, the candidates
were required to qualify the NEET Examination, which was
admittedly conducted for admissions in Academic Session 2017-
18.
85. This Court finds no substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioners that without having statutory
Regulations of 2017, the authorities could not have insisted upon
the petitioners to qualify in the NEET Test, this Court finds that the
Dental Council of India had authorized the National Board of
Examinations (NBE) to conduct the qualifying examination, as per
the powers conferred under the Dental Council of India Revised
MDS Course (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2007.
86. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
there was no violation of the Regulations of 2017, qua the
admissions of the petitioners, as neither letter of discharge nor the
counter affidavit, filed by the Dental Council of India state so, this
Court finds that the Dental Council of India is the competent
authority created under the Dentists Act, 1948 to impart
education in dental field and in order to see/determine the
eligibility for the purpose of admission in different dental courses,
it can look into the eligibility of the candidates for the purpose of
admission and if the Dental Council of India had taken a decision
to discharge the petitioners, the same cannot be treated as having
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(35 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
been passed on the allegations of violation of the Regulations of
2017.
87. This Court finds that the order dated 12.09.2018 makes a
reference of the letter received from the Director, Medical
Education, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and the letter dated 06.07.2018
received from the Chairman, NEET PG Admission Board, wherein
the details of MDS students were verified and only four candidates
were found to be admitted by the Counseling Board and
information of 16 candidates was not available with the Counseling
Board and as such the Dental Council of India in its meeting, held
on 23.08.2018, decided to discharge 16 students, as the
admission of these students was not confirmed for the Academic
Session 2017-18.
88. The letter dated 12.09.2018 has taken into account that the
petitioners were admitted in the respondent-College, at the
College level itself, without having any registration with the
Admission Board and further without qualifying in the NEET
examination and as such the Dental Council of India had, rightly
taken the decision to discharge these students.
89. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
discharge of the petitioners is not based on the ground that they
were not NEET qualified or their admissions were made in any
illegal manner and further reasons of discharge of petitioners were
neither relevant nor justifiable, this Court finds that the petitioners
not being admitted through the Counseling Board on the basis of
merit and further not qualified in the NEET examination, were
liable to be discharged and the Dental Council of India had
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(36 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
sufficient basis to reach to the conclusion, after information was
furnished to them by the Admission Board, that the petitioners
were admitted at the College level itself and the Admission Board
was not even aware of such admissions being made.
90. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners were not issued any show-cause notice or
opportunity of hearing was not given to them, this Court finds that
the Dental Council of India had received information, about illegal
admissions made by the respondent-College, furnished by the
Chairman, NEET PG Admission Council Board and the Director,
Medical Education, Jaipur and upon receiving such information,
the decision was taken, by informing the College concerned, to
discharge the petitioners (students), as they were not having
eligibility to get admission.
91. This Court finds that the petitioners have themselves got
admission without having eligibility and they did not qualify in the
NEET Examination and the petitioners further supplied incorrect
information to the University authorities by furnishing false
information of having secured qualifying marks in the NEET
examination and as such, the petitioners cannot be allowed to
plead that notice or opportunity was required to be given to them.
This Court finds that the petitioners got admission by wrong
means knowing fully well about their eligibility and as such they
cannot be permitted to claim right in their favour of offering them
opportunity of hearing before discharging them from the course,
in which they got admission in an illegal manner.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(37 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
92. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
verification of admission of the petitioners is yet to be concluded
and discharge order has been passed without completing the
process of verification, this Court finds no substance in the said
submission and it is wrong assumption on the part of the
petitioners that verification of admissions of the petitioners is yet
to be concluded.
93. This Court, from bare reading of the order dated 12.09.2018,
finds that the Director, Medical Education, Jaipur and Chairman of
the Admission Board had already communicated to the petitioners
that they had not been given admission through PG Counseling
Board and they were not having the requisite percentile of marks
in the NEET examination.
94. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
they are not backdoor entries and as per the decision dated
29.05.2017, non-NEET registered candidates, after mop-up round,
were permitted and the decision of the Board was acted upon by
the similarly situated Colleges for filling the vacant seats, this
Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners and finds that even the decision dated 29.05.2017 did
not permit any admission to be made from non-NEET registered
candidates and further even after the mop-up round was over, it
was incumbent upon the College authorities to seek further
instructions from the PG Counseling Board as whether the vacant
seats, after mop-up round, could have been filled by them at their
own.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(38 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
95. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners have not played any fraud or affecting any other
candidate's right, this Court does not find such submission to be of
any merit. This Court finds that the petitioners have furnished
incorrect/false information to the University authorities of having
secured marks/percentile in the NEET examination, whereas some
of the petitioners had not appeared at all in the NEET examination
and while filling up the enrollment forms, they have deliberately
misguided the University authorities and as such no protection can
be given to the petitioners.
96. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners have completed three year couse of study and
have also written their final examination and as such, efforts made
by them should not go waste, this Court finds little substance in
such submission and the same is noted to be rejected. This Court
finds that the petitioners and the College authorities were well
aware of the discharge order, passed by the Dental Council of
India on 12.09.2018 and yet the petitioners in connivance with the
College authorities continued with their studies in the College. The
petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of a situation
which was created to nullify or to give effect to the action taken by
the Dental Council of India.
97. This Court finds that had the College authorities felt
aggrieved against the action taken by the Dental Council of India,
the proper action was required to be taken at their level and the
College authorities did not bother to do so, in spite of the
communication dated 12.09.2018. This was a dubious devise
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(39 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
which was adopted by the respondent-College and they permitted
the petitioners with the wrong admissions and when the
examination was due in May, 2020, they projected the students-
the petitioners, as face of the College for seeking indulgence from
this Court and sought permission to write examination even
without disclosing the discharge orders being passed by the Dental
Council of India in the year 2018 itself.
98. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the Apex Court has been consistent in holding that the seats in
medical courses should not go waste and admissions given to the
candidates may be regularized, this Court is afraid to accept the
said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. The
question before this Court is not of considering as whether the
seats would go waste or can be utilized by any person at the
College level without having the minimum eligibility or
qualification, which is prescribed for admission to such courses.
99. This Court finds that if the plea of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is accepted, then the Colleges/admission bodies will be
acting on their own to adjudge the eligibility of different persons
for the professional courses and the candidates without having the
requisite eligibility and merit will be able to get admission and
then seal of approval will be sought from the Courts of law that
such persons need to be regularized for the purpose of pursing
professional courses.
100. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the Dental Council of India that the College authorities
as well as the petitioners were bound by the statutory
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(40 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Regulations, which have been framed by the Dental Council of
India and no admission in MDS Course could have been granted
without having secured the qualifying marks/percentile in the
examination, conducted by the National Board of Examinations
(NBE) in the year 2017.
101. This Court further finds substance in the submission of
learned counsel for the respondent-DCI that the Central
Government had promulgated Ordinance on 24.05.2016 with
regard to mode and manner for conducting NEET Examination and
the said Ordinance was replaced and repealed by the Dentists
(Amendment) Act, 2016, enacted on 02.06.2016 providing for
uniform entrance examination to all the Dental Educational
Institutions under the graduate and post graduate levels through
designated authority and the designated authority was to ensure
conduct of uniform entrance examination.
102. This Court finds that the Dental Council of India issued
Revised MDS Course Regulation, 2017 and for the purpose of
selection of post graduate students, it is provided that the
students for MDS PG Course shall be selected strictly on the basis
of their academic merit and for the purpose of determining the
academic merit, the University/Institutions were given option to
adopt procedure for post graduate diploma and MDS degree
courses and the said procedure could be either (i) on the basis of
merit determined by the competitive test, conducted by the State
Government or by the Competent Authority, appointed by the
State Government or by the University/Group of Universities in the
same State, or (ii) on the basis of merit, as determined by the
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(41 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
Centeralized competitive test held at the National level; or (iii) on
the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first,
second, third and final BDS Examination, if such examination was
passed from the same University; or (iv) combination of (i) & (iii).
103. This Court, on perusal of the same, finds that centeralized
competitive test was permissible to be conducted at the National
level and for the year 2017, such centeralized competitive test
was held at the National level, the admissions could only be made
by the said method and by no other method.
104. This Court further finds substance in the submission of
learned counsel for the University that the petitioners have been
guilty of furnishing wrong information to the University authorities
while filling up the enrollment forms and the petitioners
deliberately did not disclose complete facts about their eligibility
and rather the petitioners made false claims about their eligibility.
105. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajan Purohit
& Ors. Vs. RUHS & Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex Court has
made a distinction between a candidate who does not fulfill the
eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS Course and a candidate
who fulfills the eligibility criteria but has not been admitted in
accordance with the procedure for selection on the basis of merit.
The Apex Court has held that in a case where the candidate does
not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to a course or for
taking an examination, he cannot ask the Court to relax the
eligibility criteria. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the
Medical College was at fault in not holding a competitive entrance
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(42 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
examination for determining inter-se merit of the students who
had applied to the College for admission into MBBS seats of the
College in accordance with clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations and did not follow transparent and fair admission
process.
106. The Apex Court further held that the students were the
beneficiaries of violation of MCI Regulations and they got
admission without proper evaluation of their merit and as such the
Apex Court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, directed the petitioners therein-the students
to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the State Government.
107. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners does not help the case of the present petitioners as the
Apex Court itself has made a distinction between a candidate who
does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS Course
and a candidate who fulfills the eligibility criteria but has not been
admitted in accordance with the procedure for selection on the
basis of merit. Moreover, the Apex Court has exercised its power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and as such, the said
judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners.
108. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Priya
Gupta Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. (supra), again the Apex
Court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case
in order to do complete justice between the parties, exercising its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and
permitted the appellants therein to complete their professional
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(43 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
course subject to condition of paying Rs.5,00,000/- to the College.
The said judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners as the
Apex Court has exercised its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
109. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of
Abha George & Ors. Vs. AIIMS & Ors. (supra), this Court finds
that the Delhi High Court found that the petitioners therein had
not misrepresented or concealed any information from the
authorities about conducting qualifying examination and as such,
the blame was more on the Institution than the petitioners therein
and accordingly, the cancellation of admission was set aside. The
said judgment is not applicable on the legal issue involved in the
present writ petitions and as such the same is of no help to the
present petitioners.
110. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok
Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (supra), this
Court finds that the Apex Court in that case came to the
conclusion that it was the duty of the authority-University to see
that its statutes, rules and resolutions were clear and
unambiguous and did not mislead bonafide candidates. The Apex
Court has held that it was the sins of management in admitting
the students and as such, the appellant therein was not at fault
and he was not to suffer on the basis of the mistake committed by
the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(44 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is of no assistance to the petitioners.
111. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University & Anr.
(supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court has held that the
blame for wrongful admission, was more upon the Engineering
College which granted admission and as such, the Apex Court
regularized the admission of ineligible candidates and accordingly,
the candidates were allowed to pursue the course for a
considerable length of time. The said case is of no assistance to
the petitioners.
112. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.Sudha Vs.
University of Mysore & Anr. (supra), this Court finds that the
said judgment was based on the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur
(supra) decided by the Apex Court. The said judgment, in the
humble opinion of this Court, is of no assistance to the petitioners.
113. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment rendered the Apex Court in the case of
Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. UOI &
Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court considering the
peculiar facts of that case of completing the 2 nd year of MBBS
Course, came to the rescue of the students by permitting them to
complete the MBBS Course and the Apex Court in para-12 of the
said judgment made it clear that considering the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the said judgment was not to be
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(45 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
treated as a precedent, since the said judgment is not a precedent
for any other case, as such, no benefit can be derived by the
petitioners by placing reliance on the same.
114. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs.
Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges, Punjab &
Ors. (supra), the Apex Court again permitted the students therein
to continue with the study, provided they were admitted prior to
the last date of admission. The said order was treated as a one
time exercise, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances,
and the Apex Court ordered that the said judgment was not be
treated as a precedent. This Court in view of the said judgment,
not being a precedent, cannot take into grant the relief, as has
been claimed by the petitioners.
115. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Abdul
Ahad & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) has laid down the law that
if the admissions in the medical college are granted by conducting
private counseling then such admissions are termed as per se
illegal. The Apex Court has further held that when the admissions
granted to the students through private counseling, are found to
be per se illegal, then such admissions cannot be protected, as the
said admissions were done in a patently illegal manner. The
extracts of the judgment, relevant for the present purpose, are as
follows:-
"20. The said Notification dated 22.8.2016 came to be
challenged by various petitioners including Glocal University
before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The
Allahabad High Court by an elaborate judgment dated
15.9.2016 found no fault with the Notification issued by the
State of Uttar Pradesh prescribing centralized counselling for
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(46 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
all institutions for admission to MBBS/BDS course in the
State, based on NEET 2016. It will be relevant to refer to the
following observations in the operative part of the judgment
of the Allahabad High Court dated 15.9.2016, which read
thus:
"(i) Subject to what has been held hereinabove, the
impugned orders prescribing a Centralized Counselling
for all institutions for admission to MBBS/BDS medical
courses in the State based on NEET 2016, do not suffer
from any error.
(ii) Minority institutions shall be allowed to admit the
students of their community based on Centralized
Counselling held by the State on the basis of NEET
2016, to the extent permissible, but, without deviating
from the merit of such students as reflected in the
NEET list 2016, so as to sub-serve their minority status
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India."
21. It could thus clearly be seen that though minority
institutions were allowed to admit the students of their
community based on Centralized Counselling held by the
State on the basis of NEET 2016, the same was to be done
without deviating from the merit of the said students.
22. Though Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel,
tried to submit that the Notification dated 22.8.2016 is only
an administrative instruction and therefore not binding, we
are unable to accept the same.
23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of Modern Dental College and
Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others:
"168. Having regard to the prevailing conditions
relating to admissions in private professional
educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
the legislature in its wisdom has taken the view that
meritbased admissions can be ensured only through a
common entrance test followed by centralised
counselling either by the State or by an agency
authorised by the State. In order to ensure rights of
the applicants aspiring for medical courses under
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
legislature by the impugned legislation introduced the
system of common entrance test (CET) to secure merit-
based admission on a transparent basis. If private
unaided educational institutions are given unfettered
right to devise their own admission procedure and fee
structure, it would lead to situation where it would
impinge upon the "right to equality" of the students
who aspire to take admissions in such educational
institutions. Common entrance test by State or its
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(47 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
agency will ensure equal opportunity to all meritorious
and suitable candidates and meritorious candidates can
be identified for being allotted to different institutions
depending on the courses of study, the number of seats
and other relevant factors. This would ensure twin
objects:
(i) fairness and transparency, and
(ii) merit apart from preventing maladministration.
Thus, having regard to the larger interest and welfare
of the student community to promote merit and
achieve excellence and curb malpractices, it would be
permissible for the State to regulate admissions by
providing a centralised and single-window procedure.
Holding such CET followed by centralised counselling or
single-window system regulating admissions does not
cause any dent on the fundamental rights of the
institutions in running the institution. While private
educational institutions have a "right of occupation" in
running the educational institutions, equally they have
the responsibility of selecting meritorious and suitable
candidates, in order to bring out professionals with
excellence. Rights of private educational institutions
have to yield to the larger interest of the community.
169. By holding common entrance test and identifying
meritorious candidates, the State is merely providing
the merit list of the candidates prepared on the basis of
a fair common entrance test. If the screening test is
conducted on merit basis, no loss will be caused to the
private educational institutions. There is neither
restriction on the entry of the students in the
sanctioned intake of the institutions nor on their right
to collect fees from the students. The freedom of
private educational institutions to establish and run
institution, impart education, recruit staff, take
disciplinary action, admit students, participate in
fixation of fees is in no way being abridged by the
impugned legislation; it remains intact."
24. It will further be apposite to note that some private
medical colleges had conducted their own counselling for
admitting students in their respective colleges and as such,
the State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a contempt petition.
The said contempt petition was decided by this Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey and
others2 . It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 5 and 6 in
Jainarayan Chouksey (supra), which read thus:
"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length. We observe that mandate of our judgment
[Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of
M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353:7 SCEC 1] was to hold
centralised entrance test followed by centralised State
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(48 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
counselling by the State to make it a one composite
process. We, therefore, direct that admission to all
medical seats shall be conducted by centralised
counselling only by the State Government and none
else.
6. If any counselling has been done by any college or
university and any admission to any medical seat has
been given so far, such admission shall stand cancelled
forthwith and admission shall be given only as per
centralised counselling done by the State Government."
25. It could thus clearly be seen that the private counselling
by Glocal Medical College was conducted contrary to the
Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which
Notification, in turn, was based on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Modern Dental College and Research
Centre (supra), which was decided on 2.5.2016. Not only
that, but this Court by order dated 22.9.2016 had further
clarified the position.
26. XX XX XX
27. In the light of this position, it was not at all permissible
for the Glocal Medical College to have conducted private
counselling. The admissions which were conducted through
the said private counselling cannot be termed as anything
else but per se illegal.
28. Though we have all the sympathies with the students,
we will not be in a position to do anything to protect the
admissions, which were done in a patently illegal manner.
29. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations
made by this Court in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University
v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and others.
"In the present case, the High Court was apparently
moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an
accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal
position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The
courts should not embarrass academic authorities by
themselves taking over their functions."
30. It will further be appropriate to refer to the following
observations of this Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh v.
State of J & K and others.
"12. What remains to be considered is whether the
selection of Respondent 6 should be quashed. We are
afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of
human consideration in regard to such excesses on the
part of the authorities, has served to create an
impression that even where an advantage is secured by
stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(49 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
of law. Courts do and should take human and
sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence
of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also
dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage
gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will
jeopardise the purity of selection process itself;
engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial
process and in the last analysis embolden errant
authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency
and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could
be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court.
Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of
courts into private benevolence. This tendency should
be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports
category was, on the material placed before us,
thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports
category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his
marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution
of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in
our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have
sympathy for the predicament of Respondent 6, it
should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the
result of his own making. We think in order to uphold
the purity of academic processes, we should quash the
selection and admission of Respondent 6. We do so,
though, however, reluctantly."
31. Similar observations have been made by this Court in
K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and others.
32. The facts in the present case are somewhat similar with
the facts, which fell for consideration in the case of Mahatma
Gandhi University and another v. GIS Jose and others.
33. In the said case, the admissions were given for M.Sc.
Computer Science course in violation of admission rules. The
High Court had directed to declare the withheld result of
such students. Reversing the judgment of the High Court,
this Court observed thus:
"10. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown
in total breach of the rules. In our opinion, that is precisely
what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this
Court in CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran [(2003) 7 SCC 719].
In para 6 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows:
(SCC p. 724)
"6. This Court has on several occasions earlier
deprecated the practice of permitting the students to
pursue their studies and to appear in the examination
under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In
most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since
the course was over or the result had been declared,
the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically.
It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(50 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and
concessions, against the legal provisions."
11. In the present case, the college where the student
was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed
her not only to complete the course but also to write
the examination which was totally illegal."
34. XX XX XX
35. In the backdrop of this legal position laid down in various
judgments of this Court, it will not be possible to consider
the cases of the review petitioners sympathetically. The
Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the basis
of the law laid down by this Court clearly provided that the
admissions were to be done only through the centralized
admission process. Glocal Medical College in contravention of
the said Notification conducted private counselling, which
was not at all permissible in law. The students cannot be said
to be ignorant about the Notification issued by the State of
Uttar Pradesh.
36. In such a situation, no sympathies can be shown to such
students who have entered through backdoor. Apart from
that, MCI vide order dated 27.1.2017 had discharged the
said students, who were not admitted through centralized
admission process. It is pertinent to note that 25 students
admitted in the same college, who were admitted through
the centralized admission process, were very much absorbed
by the DGME in other colleges. As such, the contention of
the review petitioners that they came to know about the
discharge order dated 27.1.2017 issued by MCI only when
they had filed a petition in the High Court in 2019 does not
stand to reason.
37. Insofar as the contention with regard to the interim
order passed by this Court dated 20.3.2017 is concerned,
the same would clearly show that though the students were
permitted to appear in the examination, their results were
directed not to be published. There is no other order
modifying the said order.
38. It is difficult to appreciate as to how the results of the
students were declared for the 1st year MBBS examination,
how they were admitted in the 2nd year MBBS course and
how they cleared the 2nd year MBBS examination, despite
the fact that MCI had discharged the students vide order
dated 27.1.2017.
39. XX XX XX
40. In the result, the Review Petitions are without merit and
as such dismissed. Consequently, all pending applications,
including the application(s) for intervention/impleadment
shall stand disposed of."
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(51 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
116. This Court finds that admission of the petitioners by illegal
means, cannot be retained. The Apex Court in the case of
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J&K & Ors. reported in AIR 1993
SC 2638 has considered the issue of admission by illegal means
and such wrongs were not allowed to be retained by an appeal to
the sympathy of the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment
is reproduced hereunder:-
"9. What remains to be considered is whether the selection
of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid,
unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human
consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the
authorities, has served to create an impression that even
where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it
could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should
take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the
very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy
also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage
gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will
jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender
cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last
analyses embolden errant authorities and candidates into a
sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by
such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy
of the court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and
discretion of courts into private benevolence. This tendency
should be stopped. The selection of respondent No. 6 in the
sports category was, on the material placed before us
thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports
category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks,
to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility
long after the selection process was over, in our opinion is
misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the
predicament of respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of
the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We
think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we
should quash the selection and admission of respondent No.
6. We do so though, however, reluctantly."
117. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Ravindra Srivastava
submitted that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Abdul Ahad (supra) is based on its own peculiar facts and the
admission of the petitioners in the present case is not per se
illegal and there was no statutory notification issued for holding
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(52 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
centralized counseling/admission and as such, there is no violation
of any of the statutory notification in the instant case.
118. Mr.Srivastava further submitted that the judgment of Abdul
Ahad (supra) has not overruled the previous judgments of the
Apex Court laying down the law that the students cannot be
penalized for the acts and omissions of the College, where they
are not party to the illegality.
119. This Court is afraid to accept the submission of Mr.Srivastava
learned counsel for the petitioners and finds that the Apex Court
has laid down the law that if the admissions are per se illegal, the
same cannot have the seal of approval from the Courts of law.
120. This Court further finds that in the present case, the
petitioners have been admitted in the MDS Course, without having
the requisite merit/qualifying marks in the NEET PG Examination
and further there has been concealment on the part of the
petitioners to inform the University authorities about their actual
score secured in the NEET PG Examination.
121. This Court has already found in earlier part of this judgment
that some of the petitioners did not even appear in the NEET PG
Examination, 2017 and yet while filling up the enrollment form,
they all have shown themselves to have appeared in the NEET PG
Examination, 2017 and some of them also gave incorrect
information relating to the marks obtained by them in the NEET
PG Examination.
122. Before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it proper
to record certain relevant facts about the hearing of the present
case.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(53 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
123. Counsel for the parties were heard at length and finally they
concluded their arguments on 19.04.2022 and the order was
reserved by this Court. This Court, thereafter, listed the petitions
on 28.06.2022 in "To Be Mentioned" category as certain
clarification was required from the learned counsel for the parties.
124. On 28.06.2022, itself counsel for the petitioners informed
this Court that after the judgment was reserved, further
development had taken place and the respondent-University had
sent the degrees of 16 students-petitioners of MDS Batch, 2017 to
the respondent-College and the said degrees were distributed to
the petitioners from 20.05.2022 to 30.05.2022.
125. Counsel appearing for the University Mr.Ravi Chirania on that
day produced one letter dated 23.06.2022, for perusal of this
Court, whereby the respondent-College was asked to return the
degrees, as the degrees were mistakenly issued to them with
other eligible BDS and MDS candidates, who passed out in the
year 2019 & 2020 and Mr.Ravi Chirania, Advocate sought time to
file proper affidavit and the matter was ordered to be listed on
04.07.2022.
126. On 04.07.2022, when the case was again listed before this
Court and additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of the
respondent-University was taken on record and after concluding
the arguments by counsel for the parties, the judgment was again
reserved.
127. This Court finds that in the additional affidavit filed by the
Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University, it was mentioned
that serious human error has been committed by the subordinate
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(54 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
staff i.e. Section Officer and Senior Assistant and the envelope
containing the degrees of the petitioners was wrongly handed over
along with the degrees of BDS & MDS of 2019 & 2020 to the
authorized Officer of the respondent-College, who was authorized
to collect the degrees of the students of all courses.
128. The Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University further
sought unconditional apology for unintentional human mistake
said to be committed by the subordinate staff and reiterated that
the University since beginning has been objecting the admissions
of 16 students in the MDS Course, as the same was illegal. Further
reference is made, in the affidavit, to the fact that the Single
Bench of this Court on 15.06.2020 had permitted the petitioners
to appear in the examination and the order dated 15.06.2020,
passed by the Single Bench, was challenged by way of D.B.Special
Appeal (Writ) No.394/2020 and the Division Bench of this court
without interfering with the order passed by the Single Bench
passed the order dated 24.06.2020 and ordered that the result of
the petitioners was not to be declared without prior permission of
the Court.
129. It is further stated in the affidavit that no marksheet, no
provisional certificate and no tabulation register of 16 students
(the petitioners) was prepared and only degrees were issued in
routine process by human error only and on noticing the said
human error, email dated 23.06.2022 has been given to the
respondent-College to immediately return the degrees to the
respondent-University.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(55 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
130. This Court finds that the University authorities who have
issued the degrees to the respondent-College have acted in most
irresponsible, callous and illegal manner. The fact of restraint
order, being passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was very
much in the knowledge of the University authorities and in spite of
having the knowledge of such restraint order, if they have handed
over the degrees of the petitioners to the respondent-College,
they need to be dealt with by this Court in strict manner.
131. The explanation given in the additional affidavit by terming
such action to be a human error and further only by giving letter
of calling upon explanation from two subordinate staff i.e. Section
Officer and Senior Assistant, is no solution/answer to the blunder
committed by the University authorities.
132. This Court is also required to see the conduct of the
respondent-Dental College as in what manner, admissions were
granted by them to the petitioners and further in spite of the
discharge order passed by the DCI in the year 2018, yet the
petitioners were allowed to continue with their studies by
permitting them to complete three year MDS Course and
apparently made them eligible for claiming relief of appearing in
the examination on completion of three years.
133. Though, this Court has found that the petitioners were not
eligible for MDS Course and did not furnish full and correct
information before the authorities, however, the fact remains that
the petitioners were admitted in the Course in the year 2017 and
their three years in the College is sheer wastage of energy, time
and money spent on their education by their parents.
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(56 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]
134. This Court, though cannot regularize the admissions which
were granted to the petitioners, however, the petitioners need to
be compensated by the respondent-College for the illegality
committed by them while giving admission to the petitioners and
further furnishing incorrect and false information to different
authorities i.e. respondent-University and respondent-DCI.
135. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed and this Court
deems it proper to issue following directions:-
1. The respondent-College shall pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to each petitioner
within a period of three months, as compensation, as the
petitioners have suffered on account of false promise made
to them to get admission in the respondent-College for doing
MDS Course.
2. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University shall
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials
who have handed over degrees of the petitioners of MDS
Course Batch-2017 to the respondent-College. The said
disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted & concluded in
an expeditious manner but in no case later than three
months from the date of passing of this order. After
completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the result thereof,
be immediately placed before this Court.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J.
Solanki DS, PS
(D.B. SAW/394/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
