Case: ANITTA JOB Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

adhered to the law with the result that the Petitioner became a victim of circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim of their maladministration. The plight of the Petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped. 16. We were told during the course of submissions that some similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified in the examination. Those students like the Petitioner who did not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the College and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that gamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our sympathies may be with the Petitioner and similarly placed students, we cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, only for their benefit. 25. The case of Rishabh Choudhary (supra) was a case of candidate who was admitted by the College in the year 2016-2017 in MBBS Course on the basis of examination conducted by the College. This Court noticed in the aforesaid judgment that this Court having already passed an order dated 11.04.2016 recalling the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2013 in Christian Medical College, Vellore and Ors. v. Union of Inida and Ors (2014) 2 SCC 305 , the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on 21.12.2010 reviewed that the examination was to be conducted by NEET. This Court in Rishabh Choudhary case (supra) has also noticed the order of this Court dated 06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra) where this Court has directed that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admission to MBBS or BDS studies by any private college. In paragraphs 9 to 12 following was held:9. By an order dated 6-5-2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust, it was made clear that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admission for MBBS studies by any private college or association or any private/deemed university. 10. Subsequently on 9-5-2016 this Court declined to modify the order dated 28-4-2016. An order was also passed making it clear that all such candidates who could not appear in NEET I and those who had appeared but had an apprehension that they had not prepared well, would be permitted to appear in NEET II subject to an option from these candidates to give up their candidature for NEET I. It was further clarified that only NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBS studies. 11. In view of all these orders passed by this Court from time to time, it is more than abundantly clear that the Notification dated 21-12-2010 stood resurrected and that admissions to the MBBS course could only be through NEET I and NEET II. No other process of admission was permissible. Given this background, the Director of Medical Education in Chhattisgarh wrote to the College on or about 13-7-2016 to take steps to cancel all the admissions made by the College in terms of the examination CGMAT-2016 held for students for the management quota and NRI quota. Eventually by a Letter dated 28-7-2016 the Director of Medical Education in Chhattisgarh recommended to the College to cancel admissions made to the MBBS course. This prompted the Petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court. 12. It is submitted and prayed by the Petitioner that since he had already been granted admission by the College after the examination CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College and supervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and in which there were no allegations of impropriety, his admission should not be disturbed. It is submitted that the Petitioner was certainly not at fault and there is no reason why he should be the victim of an apparent wrong committed by the College as also by the State of Chhattisgarh. 26. The observations were made in paragraphs 15 and 16 in the background of facts in that case. Present is not a case where the Appellants did not appear in the NEET examination or they were granted admission disregarding the merits of other candidates in NEET. No details of any candidate who secured higher rank or merit to the Appellants and was not given admission in the College has been brought to our notice. It may be true that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly permit the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made their unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being included in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the College having given such opportunity to others in addition to 7 candidates who had complained to the ASC, such action of the College cannot be termed the mala fide or with oblique motive especially when similarly situated candidates were included in the list of eligible candidates. The High Court had not given due consideration to the important condition which was put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come up with proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission. The above safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought of admission in the College prior to last date of admission. 27. It is not disputed that the Appellants had proof of demand drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of admission. In the facts of the present case where admission was also notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the Appellants were also permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the Appellants out of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. There cannot be any dispute with the procedure which was prescribed for admissions in MBBS Course, students were to make applications on-line and last date for making such applications was 09.09.2016. There is also no dispute that Appellants could not succeed in making any on-line application prior to 09.09.2016 although they claim to have prepared a demand draft before the last date of admission.21. The order dated 22.09.2016 has to be treated as passed by the ASC in exercise of the abovesaid statutory power. It is true that in the order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear direction that names of other candidates who have not even submitted complaints should be included or any fresh applications be invited but College taking guidance from the aforesaid order issued the notice extending the similar protection to all the candidates who come with their unsuccessful attempts for registration but with the rider that they should come up along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut off date. The requirement of demand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an important factor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought of making an application in the College to come up with their applications with any fresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016 clearly prohibited all the candidates who had not taken demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 which was the last date of admission. In the present case College had filed details of demand drafts of the Appellants and it was not disputed that they submitted their applications with demand drafts taken before the last date of application. The High Court has taken a view that since they have not made on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016 they were not entitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-line application was a condition which having not been fulfilled, their applications were disapproved by the ASC and the High Court has also come to the conclusion that their applications were made after 09.09.2016 and they were admitted in the College on 28.09.2016. There cannot be any dispute that as per procedure prescribed and the interim order of the Kerala High Court dated 26.08.2016 students were to submit admission applications to the respective Colleges on-line and the admissions were to be taken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination22. During the course of hearing we had repeatedly asked learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents as to whether any candidate having merit higher to the Appellants in the NEET examination, has submitted any complaint or made any protest to any authority complaining that he had made application to the College having secured higher rank to the Appellants and has been denied the admission. The Respondents could not point out any such details of any candidate who was included in the list published by the College and who had higher NEET rank to the Appellants and has raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is also on the record that in fact after admission made in the Management quota and NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which were surrendered to the Government by the College23. Details of names of eight candidates, invited for spot admission against the still vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted on 07.10.2016 (within the date as extended). The details of 8 candidates who were admitted on the basis of the allotment made by the Government is found at Annexure P-7 and on perusal of the names along with their NEET rank, the inter se ranks of the candidates which were admitted subsequent to the Appellants clearly indicate that four candidates are lower in the NEET rank to the Appellants. After receiving the applications from Appellants and after being satisfied that they had demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 and had made unsuccessful attempts for their registration the College published their names on 27.09.2016 which list is also on the record. The ASC which is entrusted to supervise and guide entire admission process having issued the order dated 22.09.2016 asking the College to include the names of 7 candidates whose names were not earlier included, the College extended the said benefit and the facility to other candidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts for registration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut off date of admission. We are unable to see any mala fide or any oblique motive in publishing notice dated 23.09.2016 by the College. They received order for inclusion of 7 such candidates whose names were included in the list and extended the same benefits to other similarly situated.25. The case of Rishabh Choudhary (supra) was a case of candidate who was admitted by the College in the year 2016-2017 in MBBS Course on the basis of examination conducted by the College. This Court noticed in the aforesaid judgment that this Court having already passed an order dated 11.04.2016 recalling the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2013 in Christian Medical College, Vellore and Ors. v. Union of Inida and Ors (2014) 2 SCC 305 , the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on 21.12.2010 reviewed that the examination was to be conducted by NEET. This Court in Rishabh Choudhary case (supra) has also noticed the order of this Court dated 06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra) where this Court has directed that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admission to MBBS or BDS studies by any private college.Present is not a case where the Appellants did not appear in the NEET examination or they were granted admission disregarding the merits of other candidates in NEET. No details of any candidate who secured higher rank or merit to the Appellants and was not given admission in the College has been brought to our notice. It may be true that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly permit the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made their unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being included in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the College having given such opportunity to others in addition to 7 candidates who had complained to the ASC, such action of the College cannot be termed the mala fide or with oblique motive especially when similarly situated candidates were included in the list of eligible candidates. The High Court had not given due consideration to the important condition which was put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come up with proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission. The above safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought of admission in the College prior to last date of admission27. It is not disputed that the Appellants had proof of demand drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of admission. In the facts of the present case where admission was also notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the Appellants were also permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the Appellants out of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the High Court.