Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

SPA/360/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3664 UK

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3664 UK
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2022

Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/360/2022 on 16 November, 2022
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                  AND
                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


                           16TH NOVEMBER, 2022
                 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2022


     Between:

     Vice Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan
     Bahuguna Uttarakhand Medical
     Education University and another.                                    ...Appellants.

     and


     Dr. Sakshi Sah & others.                                     ...Respondents


     Counsel for the Appellants                :   Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel.


     Counsel for the respondent No. 1      :       Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel.


     Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 5      :      Mr.   J.C.   Pandey,    learned   Standing
                                                   Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.


     Counsel for respondent no. 3              :   Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel.




JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)



              Issue notice.


2.            Mr.       Ganesh           Kandpal,        learned          counsel          for

respondent no. 1, Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel

for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 2 & 5 and Mr.

Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 appear

and accept notice.


3.            We have heard learned counsels at some length.
                                           1
 4.        Though, there appears to be merit in the grievance

of the writ-petitioner that the appellants initially represented

that there would be two rounds of counselling, followed by a

mop up round, in terms of the schedule fixed by the Supreme

Court   and    communicated             by    the    N.M.C.,   which    was

subsequently changed by the appellants on 18.10.2022 to say

that there would be only one round of counselling called the

'main round' (as if the first and the second round are being

merged), followed by a mop up round, which misled the

respondent-writ petitioner into not registering and paying the

fee for the main round, the fact of the matter is that the

respondent despite being aware of the aforesaid decision to

conduct only one main round of counseling, followed by mop

up round on 18.10.2022, waited till the conclusion of main

round to approach this Court by filing the writ petition, only

on   02.11.2022.         If   she       had    approached      this    Court

immediately on or after 18.10.2022, there would still have

been ample time to direct the appellants to open the portal to

enable the respondent-writ petitioner, and others like her, to

register and deposit the fee to be able to participate in the

main round of counselling. She, however, waited till the

conclusion    of   the    main      round       of    counselling     before

approaching the Court.



5.        In these circumstances, in our view, it would not be
                                    2
 equitable      and   it   would       cause   grave   administrative

inconvenience and it may also disrupt the process of

counselling, if the appellants are required to hold a special

round of counselling for the respondent-writ petitioner alone-

when there may be scores of other similarly situated

candidates, who have lost out on account of the appellants'

decision to hold only one round i.e. the main round of

counselling.    The respondent-writ petitioner consciously did

not register herself and pay the fee for participating in the

main round - which she assumed was the first round, by

claiming that she desires to participate in the second round

(which was never to be held, or held).          Therefore, it would

meet the ends of justice, if the respondent-writ petitioner is

permitted to participate in the mop up round and she is given

a choice of allocation, according to her merit.



6.          Mr. Saini, who appears for the National Medical

Commission, submits that in the mop up round, whatever

seats in the State are left unfilled in the All India Quota, are

also added to the State Quota. Therefore, the kitty of the mop

up round is likely to be larger than the kitty of seats, which

would have been available, even if the second round of

counselling were to be held, in which the respondent-writ

petitioner desired to participate.



                                  3
 7.        We, therefore, modify the impugned order and

direct that the respondent-writ petitioner should be allowed to

participate in the mop up round, which is scheduled for

17.11.2022, according to her own merit.



8.        The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.




                                 ___________________
                                   VIPIN SANGHI, C. J.



                                          ______________
                                 MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Dt: 16.11.2022 A/NT

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter