ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1006, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Review Petition (Civil) Nos.1835-1836 of 2020 in I.A. No.183249 of
2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016)
AUGUST 17, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Admission to MBBS/BDS
Courses – Conduct of centralized counselling – On facts, admission
of students to 1st year Professional MBBS Course for Academic
Session 2016-17 in the Medical College – Admission carried out in
contravention of the Notification that provided that admission were
to be done only through the centralized admission process and not
by way of private counselling – 67 students admitted by the Medical
College, discharged by Medical Council of India – Challenge to –
Matter reached till Review Petition in Supreme Court – Review
petitioners’ case that having qualified NEET exam, they became
eligible to get admission; that they were admitted through counselling
conducted by the medical college; and that they have cleared 1st
and 2nd year examination – Held: Notification issued by the State
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 – Medical College in contravention of the said
Notification conducted private counselling, which was not at all
permissible in law – Admissions conducted through the said private
counselling per
se illegal – Students cannot be said to be ignorant
about the Notification issued by the State – In such a situation, no
sympathies can be shown to such students who have entered through
backdoor.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. The Notification 22.08.2016 is only an administrative
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1006
1006
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
instruction and therefore not binding, cannot be accepted. [Para
21, 22][1013-H; 1014-A-B]
1.2 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 case, decided on 2.5.2016. Not only that, but this Court
by order dated 22.9.2016 had further clarified the position. It will
further be pertinent to note that the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 15.9.2016 had negated
the challenge to the Notification dated 22.8.2016. [Para 25,
26][1016-B-D]
1.3 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. Though there is sympathy with the students, but
this Court will not be in a position to do anything to protect the
admissions, which were done in a patently illegal manner. [Para
27, 28][1016-D-E]
1.4 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. 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
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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. [Para 35,
36][1018-G-H; 1019-A-D]
1.5 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. 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. Insofar as
the observations of this Court in order dated 18.9.2017 in the
writ petition filed by Glocal Medical College challenging the
discharge order is concerned, the observation could not be
construed to have vacated or modified the specific directions
issued by this Court on 20.3.2017. [Para 37-39][1019-D-F]
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016) 7 SCC
353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Jainarayan Chouksey and Others (2016) 9 SCC 412;
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal
and Others (1993) 4 SCC 401; Gurdeep Singh v. State
of J & K and Others (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 188; K.S.
Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2001) 10
SCC 264 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 593; Mahatma Gandhi
University and Another v. GIS Jose and Others (2008)
17 SCC 611 : [2008] 13 SCR 201; National Council
for Teacher Education and Another v. Venus Public
Education Society and Others (2013) 1 SCC 223 :
[2012] 10 SCR 919 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 3 SCR 579
referred to
Para 23
(2016) 9 SCC 412
referred to
Para 24
(1993) 4 SCC 401
referred to
Para 29
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
(1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 188
referred to
Para 30
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 593
referred to
Para 31
[2008] 13 SCR 201
referred to
Para 32
[2012] 10 SCR 919
referred to
Para 34
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) Nos.1835-
1836 of 2020 in I.A. No.183249 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.31037-31038 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2020 of the Supreme
Court of India in SLP (civil) No.31037-31038 of 2016.
With
Review Petition (Civil) No.1988-1989 of 2020 in I.A. No.183249
of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Alakh Alok, Ms. Pritha Suri, Chandan
Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ankit Goel, Birendra Mishra, Abdhesh
Chaudhary, Ambrish Singh Yadav, Ms. Manisha Suri, Nailendu Vatsyayan,
Nishi Kant Singh, Ms. Geetanjali Setia, S. R. Setia, Dr. P. George Giri,
Ms. Jasmin Kurian Giri, Ravi Sagar, Linto K.B., Saratendu Kumar Bose,
Naveen Kumar Dass, Anil Kumar Shukla, Gurmeet Singh Makkar,
Apoorva Kurup, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Shiv Mangal
Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Mrs. Mona K.
Rajvanshi, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. The review petitioners have approached this Court seeking
review of the order passed by this Court dated 20.7.2020 thereby
dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016
filed by Glocal University, Glocal Medical College, Super Specialty
Hospital and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘Glocal Medical
College’) and Abdul Waheeb Education and Charitable Trust (hereinafter
referred to as ‘original writ petitioners’).
2. The review petitioners were not a party to the said petitions.
They were admitted in 1st year Professional MBBS course for the
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Academic Session 2016-2017 in Glocal Medical College, which was
affiliated to the Glocal University, a deemed University.
3. The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present review
petitions are thus:
4. The review petitioners appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as ‘NEET’), 2016 and qualified
the same. According to the review petitioners, therefore, they became
eligible to get admission in MBBS course.
5. Vide Notification dated 31.8.2016, the State of Uttar Pradesh
issued a direction for conducting centralized counselling for admission to
MBBS/BDS course in all colleges/universities in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, including private colleges and minority institutions and further
prescribed the schedule and procedure for counselling, reservation,
eligibility criteria for admission, etc.
6. Vide another Notification dated 2.9.2016, the State of Uttar
Pradesh directed that 50% of the sanctioned intake of private institutions
shall be reserved for students who had domicile of State of Uttar Pradesh.
The said direction was issued in respect of all the private institutions
(excluding minority institutions) after deducting the pool of 15% for All
India quota.
7. The said Notification dated 2.9.2016 came to be challenged
before the High Court of Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No.20575 of
2016 and other connected writ petitions. The said petitions were decided
on 15.9.2016 by
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The
order dated 15.9.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court came to be challenged by the original writ petitioners before
this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of
2016.
8. It appears that in the interregnum, the original writ petitioners
had conducted their private counselling despite Notifications issued by
the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding common counselling. It further
appears that in the meantime, some petitions for special leave to appeal
also came to be filed by some of the students being SLP(C) No. 28886
of 2016.  By a common order passed in the petitions for special leave to
appeal, including the one filed by Madhvi Goel & others [SLP(C)
No.28886 of 2016] and the one filed by Glocal University & others
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
[SLP(C) No.31037-31038 of 2016], this Court passed the following order
on 20.3.2017:
“As an interim measure, it is directed that the students prosecuting
their studies in the petitioner-University in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 31037-
31038 of 2016, may appear in the examination, but their results
shall not be published.  Needless to say, no equity shall be claimed
on the basis of the present interim order.”
9. It further appears that in the meantime, the Medical Council of
India (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’) issued a discharge letter dated
27.1.2017 to the Glocal Medical College and directed to discharge 67
students admitted by it, whose names did not figure in the list supplied by
the Director General of Medical Education & Training (hereinafter
referred to as ‘DGME’).
10. The said order dated 27.1.2017 of MCI came to be challenged
by Glocal Medical College in this Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 411 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 18.9.2017, while disposing
of the said petition with certain directions, observed thus:
“The students who have been admitted in pursuance of the letter
of permission granted for the year 2016-2017 shall be permitted
to continue their studies.”
11. According to the review petitioners, they appeared for First
Year Professional MBBS examination and cleared the same. However,
Glocal Medical College did not conduct the examination for the 2nd year
MBBS and further the classes and practicals were also suspended by
the
College. According to the review petitioners, this gave them a cause
of action to file Writ Petition No.19399 of 2019 before the Allahabad
High Court. According to the review petitioners, only during the hearing
of the said petition, they came to know about the discharge order dated
27.1.2017 issued by MCI.
12. The review petitioners therefore filed writ petition being Writ
Petition No.26367 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court assailing
the order of MCI dated 27.1.2017. The Allahabad High Court disposed
of the said writ petition with liberty to approach this Court.
13. The review petitioners therefore filed Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1287 of 2019 before this Court challenging the discharge order, but
the same was dismissed with liberty to file an application for intervention
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
in the pending Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016
filed by the original writ petitioners, as stated above. The review
petitioners therefore filed Intervention Application being I.A. No. 183249
of 2019 in the said Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of
2016. By the order under review dated 20.7.2020, the Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016 as well as Intervention
Application being I.A. No. 183249 of 2019 came to be dismissed by this
Court.
14. Seeking review, the present Review Petitions are filed by the
review petitioners. This Court on 6.10.2020 passed the following order
in the present Review Petitions:
“After carefully examining the Review Petitions we are of
the considered view that the application for hearing in the open
Court deserves to be allowed.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
List the Review Petition in Court.”
15. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties
in the Court.
16. We have extensively heard Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners, Shri Dhawal
Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MCI and Shri Ankit
Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of
Uttar Pradesh.
17. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the review petitioners would submit that the review petitioners were
duly qualified to be admitted inasmuch as, they had
cleared the NEET
examination. He further submitted that the review petitioners were
admitted through the counselling conducted by the Glocal Medical
College. Not only that, but they have also cleared the 1st year and 2nd
year examination. It is therefore submitted that it will not be in the interest
of justice to throw the review petitioners at this point of time.
18. As against this, learned counsel for MCI as well as learned
counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the review
petitioners were admitted by backdoor entry. It is submitted that their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1013
admission is the result of collusion between the Glocal Medical College
and the review petitioners. It is further submitted that Glocal Medical
College, being very well aware about the Notification dated 22.8.2016,
had conducted private counselling, which was not permissible in law and
as such, the review petitioners, who entered through backdoor entry, are
not entitled to any equitable relief.
19. It will be relevant to refer to the following paragraph of
Notification dated 22.8.2016:
“1.
After due consideration and in continuation to the aforesaid
notification dated 20.08.2016, decision has been taken for
getting conducted counselling of universities of private
sector/minorities universities of private sector/deemed
university of private sector through combined counselling
board constituted according to above.”
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 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
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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 others1:
“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 merit-based 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 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
1 (2016) 7 SCC 353
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1015
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 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.
2 (2016) 9 SCC 412
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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. It will further be pertinent to note that the Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 15.9.2016 had negated
the challenge to the Notification dated 22.8.2016.
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 others3.
“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 others4.
3 (1993) 4 SCC 401
4 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
“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 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 others5.
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 others6.
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:
5 (2001) 10 SCC 264
6 (2008) 17 SCC 611
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
“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 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. It will further be relevant to refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of National Council for Teacher Education
and another v. Venus Public Education Society and others7.
“3. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged or
interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has
to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There
cannot be
any deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly
violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek indulgence
of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the
students or financial constraint of the institution or they have been
inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory bodies. None
of these grounds justify deviation. The case at hand graphically
depicts deviations but the High Court, putting the blame on the
statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent institution
which is impermissible.”
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
7 (2013) 1 SCC 223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1019
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. Insofar as the observations of this Court in order dated
18.9.2017 in the writ petition filed by Glocal Medical College challenging
the discharge order is concerned, the observation could not be construed
to have vacated or modified the specific directions issued by this Court
on 20.3.2017.
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.
Nidhi Jain
Review petitions dismissed.
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]