State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors

2) The facts, in brief, are as under:

Therefore, two seats in 30% State quota were vacant. Accordingly, Deepika Mishra, SML No. 844 and Kirti Ruikar, SML No. 869 were given admission against the vacant seats. In view of the same, seats in their earlier places were vacant and two candidates were accommodated. Second round of admissions was finalized on 24.8.2006 and the list was published on 25.8.2006 mentioning 30.8.2006 as the last date for joining. On 28.8.2006, respondent No.1 herein submitted a representation to DMER by fax informing that the admissions of 3 respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are in violation of Rules depriving her to exercise her higher preference and betterment. However, no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Government, respondent No.1 approached the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench by filing a writ petition. On 15.9.2006, respondent No.1 herein filed an application impleading Deepika Mishra as a party respondent and the same was allowed. On 28.9.2006, after hearing the parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, by pronouncing only operative part of the judgment, thereby directing DMER to consider shifting of Kirti Ruikar from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur to GMC, Yavatmal and shifting of Sneha Agrawal, respondent No.1 herein from GMC, Yavatmal to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. Later on, on 12.10.2006, full judgment was delivered. In the meantime, the entire admission process was over. Challenging the judgment dated 28.9.2006, the State of Mahrashtra has filed the present appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

10) For the sake of brevity, we point out that, Rule 1 prescribes for distribution of seats. Rule 1.4 provides for distribution of seats to be allotted by the competent authority which includes 30% seats to be made available for the candidates from the State to be filled on the basis of State Merit List and 70% seats to be filled from the candidates situated in the region i.e. Regional list. Rule 1.6 deals with reservation for female candidates and Rule 2 prescribes selection process post and preference given by the candidates. Apart from the above rules other relevant rules are 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 which relate to selection process on the basis of preference by the candidates. In accordance with the rules, 30% of the seats available to be filled from State Merit List and remaining 70% to be filled from Regional quota, therefore, the mandates of Rules, 1.4.2, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 which clarifies that allotment of seat is required to be done strictly on the basis of merit and preferences submitted by the candidates in their respective forms. Rule 2.2.3 also requires the competent authority to follow the said procedure of allotment of seats not only in the first round of admission but also in each round of admission, in such circumstances firstly merit of the candidates is to be considered and then, preferences exercised by him or her while allotting seat to such candidate in the concerned college. In the case on hand, in IGMC, Nagpur 1 twelve seats were available for allocation in 30% State quota and 70% Regional quota in the second round of admission. Out of these twelve seats, four seats were reserved for 30% State Quota which are to be filled on the basis of State Merit List and rest on the basis of 70% Regional quota and that too on the basis of merit out of four seats meant for 30% State Quota and in IGMC, Nagpur two seats fell vacant and accordingly these seats required to be filled by the Competent Authority on the basis of State Merit List. As pointed out earlier, respondent No.1 herein was given merit position 963 in the State Merit List and respondent No.2 Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar was at 869 in the State Merit List. Therefore, respondent No.1 is much below in the merit position from respondent No.2 and also from the other candidates. Respondent No.3 Deepika Nandkumar Mishra who stood at position No. 844 in the State Merit List and, therefore, respondent No.1 herein was rightly allotted admission in GMC at Yavatmal as she ranks below in merit position in comparison to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. As stated earlier, the Competent Authority has strictly followed the rules relating to admission and the more meritorious candidates are entitled to exercise the preference first depending on the creation of vacancy in particular college after first round. In addition, the Competent Authority has to ensure that the quota system of 30% and 70% is maintained. Therefore, respondent No.1 being less meritorious than respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be given seat at 1 IGMC, Nagpur. In our view, the High Court failed to take note of the above relevant aspects and as such the impugned direction of the High Court cannot be implemented as the same will have far-reaching consequences on the entire admission process of Health Science Course in Maharashtra State. Further, it will run counter to the law laid down in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 258, as the cut-off date-30.09.2006 was already over and no shifting at this belated stage was permissible as per Medical Council of India's regulations which were held to be mandatory. In our considered opinion, the High Court has misinterpreted the Rules particularly with reference to Preference System of MHT/CET, 2006.

11) In the light of what has been stated above, the impugned judgment and final order dated 28.09.2006 in Writ Petition No. 4515 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur is set aside. Consequently, the said writ petition filed by Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal before the High Court is dismissed.

12) In the result, Civil Appeal No.6026/2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17406/2006) filed by the State of Maharashtra and Ors. stands allowed. In view of the above conclusion, the other Civil Appeal No.6027/2008 (arising out 1 of S.L.P.(C) No. 17832 of 2006) filed by Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal for issuance of certain directions is dismissed. No order as to costs in both the appeals.

...................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN) ..............................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) NEW DELHI;

October 01, 2008.