DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 286, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
(2017] 4 S.C.R. 286 
OR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8268 of 2017) 
B 
JUNE07,2017 · 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education 
C Regulations, .2000 ~ Regn. 9(1V) - Procedure for selection of. 
candidate for Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges -
Weightage to in-service doctors, who have worked in remote or 
difficult areas - High Court set aside the institutional preference in 
Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University-Central 
D 
Universities - Issuance of direction that the PG seats in these 
institutions to be filled up only from those ,fiudents who have passed 
MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in State of U.P.; 
and that the benefit of.service rendered in remote/difficult areas to 
be given only to those docto_rs of the Provincial Medical Health 
Services (PMHS) who have cleared MBBS examination from a 
E college within the State of U.P.- Justificatir;m of - Held: State can 
have no control over the seats in the medical colleges which are 
part of the central universities/institutions - These seats have to be 
filled up on the basis of merit and institutional preference could he 
given to the extent permissible i.e. 50% - Benefit of weightage in 
F 
terms of Regn. 9(1V) is available to medical officers belonging to 
PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas, 
irrespective of the
State of graduation - High Court overstepped its 
jurisdiction while issuing the said directions - Order of Hig~ Court 
as also direction issued by it, set aside. 
G 
H 
Disposing of tJie appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Both Aligarh Muslim University-AMU and 
Banaras Hindu University-BHU are central universities. The State 
· Government had issued a circular on 31.03.2017 clarifying that 
students, who had done their MBBS/BDS final year from AMU 
and BHU would be entitled for counselling only in the seats 
286,...,
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
287 
AND ORS. 
available in their own institutes-AMU and BHU. In the central A 
universities 100% admissions for MBBS course are based on all 
India examination. There is no State quota for seats in central 
universities like AMU and BHU or other central institutions like 
All India Institute of Medical Sciences etc. It is, thus, apparent . 
that the State can have no control over the seats in those medical B 
colleges which are part of the central universities/institutions. 
These seats have to be filled up on the basis of merit and 
institutional preference could be given to the extent permissible 
i.e. 50%.[Para 11][293-C-E] 
1.2 The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, 
which had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged C 
by any body before the High Court. AMU and BHU were not 
parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India 
were also not parties before the High Court. The selected 
candidates were not joined as respondents. The High Court did 
not take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case D 
of Saurabh Chaudri and other cases upholding institutional 
preferences in central universities. The High Court did not also 
take into consideration the f.act that the State had no power to 
control admissions to these universities. Therefore, the High 
Court overstepped its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of 
the writ petition while issuing the direction relating to
AMU and 
E 
BHU. The order of the High Court is erroneous and is liable to 
be set aside. [Para 12][294-B-D] 
1.3 Regulation 9(IV) of the Medical Councii' of India Post 
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 clearly provides 
that an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks for each year F 
can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served 
in remote or difficult areas subject to the condition that,the highest 
incentive will be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote 
and difficult areas is vested with the State Government. The 
purpose behind Regulation 9(1V) is that those doctors who G 
willingly served in remote and difficult areas shonld be given some 
preference while considering them for admission to post-graduate 
courses. The intention is to benefit those who left the comforts 
o( towns and cities and are willing to work in difficult conditions 
'in remote and difficult areas. [Paras 13, 14][294-D-E, G-H] 
H 
' ' 
~ i ,.
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4 The circular issued fly the State ofU.P. clearly mentions 
that benefit of Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations shall be 
available to medical officers belonging to PMHS cadre, who have 
served in remote and difficult areas. No distinction has been made 
between those who have graduated from within the State of U.P. 
B or those who have graduated from outside the State of U.P. Once 
the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified their MBBS/ 
BDS examination from· within the State of U .P. or from any other 
part of the country, are selected and join the medical health 
service in t~e State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e. 
PMHS. Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or 
C difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the 
basis as to which State they have done their graduation from. 
Therefore, there is no reason as to why the benefit of weightage 
in terms of Regulation 9(IV) should be limited to those in service 
candidates of the PMHS category, who have graduated from within 
D the State ofU.P. This is a totally artificial distinction drawn up by 
the High Court. In fact, the State of U.P. had also not made any 
.such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary was 
categoricaLthat the 2000 Regulations had not created such a 
divide or distinction. [Para 15] (295-D-GJ 
1.5 The High Court erred in deciding that only those in 
E service doctors who had cleared their
MBBS examination from 
within the State of U.P., were only entitled to the benefit of 
Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations. Not only the High Court 
transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the 
writ petition but by the impugned order set at naught the entire 
F 
selection process only two days before the last date of admissions 
making it virtually impossible to comply with the direction of the 
High Court within the short period of two days. [Paras 16, 
17] [296-C-D] 
1.6 In view of the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this 
G Court in * Asl1ish Ranjan 's case, normally this Court would be 
reluctant to extend the time. However, the instant case has some 
peculiar facts of its own. The High Court has, on a totally 
erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the counselling 
on 29.05.2017 which would have resulted in fresh counselling 
and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30'h or 
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
289 
AND ORS. 
31.05.2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have A 
taken only 2 days' time, would now require a minimum of 5 or 6 
days' time because action would have to be taken afresh. [Para 
20][296-H; 297-A-B] 
1. 7 The judgment and order of the High Court, all directions 
issued by it and all consequential action taken by the State of B 
U.P. and/or any other authority pursuant to that order, is set aside. 
Those who were counselled and granted admission prior to the 
impugned judgement of the High Court would be permitted to 
continue in their respective courses. The time for filling up the 
vacant seats, if any, in AMU, BHU and Government run medical 
colleges/institutions in the State of U.P. is extended. [Paras 18, C 
21)[296-E; 297-C-D) 
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dine.sh Singh Chauhan 2016 (8) 
SCALE 16; Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India 
& Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; 
* Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 11 
sec 225 - referred to 
Case Law Reference 
2016 (8) SCALE 16 
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 
referred to 
Para 9 
referred to 
Para 11 
(2016) 11 SCC 225 
referred to 
Paras 19, 20 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8268 
of 2017. 
D 
E 
flf~m the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2017 of the High Court 
F 
ofJudicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 17183of2017 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 8269, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273 and 8274 of2017. 
Maninder Singh, Ajay Kumar
Mishra, ASG, R. S. Suri, 
Subramonium Prasad, Salman Khurshid, Indu Malhotra, Vivek Tankha, 
G 
Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Ajay Kumar Mishra, S. S. Shamshery, AAG, 
Arun Bhardwaj, Ashish Pandey, Sumit Sharma, Gauraan Bhardwaj, 
Vishwa Pal Singh, Abhay Kumar,.Khalid Akhtar, Bilal Khan, Saurabh 
Mishra, Himanshu, Aamir Hassan, Indra Sen Singh, Sarvesh Singh, 
Pushkar Prehar, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. lndira, lmtiazAhmed, Anish 
H
"' 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A Dayal, Zafar Khurshid, Miss Subhi Sharma, Miss Mithali Chauhan (for 
Ashok Anand), Varun Singh, Tanvir Nayas, Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, 
Vrindavan Mishra, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amande~p Kaur, Prateek 
Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur, Shubranshu Padhi, Kush Chaturvedi, 
· R. K. Rathore, Ms. Alka Agrawitl, Ms. Rekha Pandey; Ajay Kumar 
. B Sharma (for G. S. Makkar), Shrivandap. Mishram, S:'Uday~$umar Sagar, 
Arm1 Sharma, Ankit Raj (for Ms. R"chi Kohli), Devansh Mohta, Raghav 
· Dwivedi and Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DEEPAK GUPTA,J. ! .Applications for permission to file special 
c leave petitions are allowed. Applications for impleadment/intervention 
are also allowed. 
2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 
3. ~y this.order we are disposing of all the aforesaid civil appeals 
as well as interlocutory application( s) relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh 
D in Writ Petition (C) No. 76of2015. Keeping in view the urgent nature 
E 
· of the dispute, the appeals and the interlocutory application (s) relating 
to the State ofUttar Pradesh in the Writ Petition (C) No.76'of2015 are 
taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 
4. TwQquestions arise for decision in these cases: 
(i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the 
institutional preference in theAligarh Muslim University (for 
short "AMU") and Banaras Hindu University (for
short 
"BHU'') and further directing that the post-graduate seats in 
these institutions shall be filled up only from those students 
who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and 
Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh; 
(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction 
that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas 
should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical 
G 
Health Services (for short "the PMHS"), who have cleared . 
H 
MBBS examination from a college within the State of U .P. 
5. The impugned order has been challenged by the appellants, 
some of whom are person.;;_who have been admitted in AMU and BHU 
and whose admissions are now sought to be cancelled on the basis of
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
291 
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
the impugned order. Some of the appeals have been filed by in service 
A 
doctors who have graduated from outside the State of U.P. Appeals 
have also been filed by the AMU and the BHU. 
6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are thata writ petition being 
Writ Petition (C) No. 17183 of 2017 was filed by certain doctors in 
which their only claim was that the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the ·B 
Medical Council oflndia Post Graduate MedicalEducation Regulations, 
2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2000 Regulations") was only 
available to those doctors serving in the Uttar Pradesh PMHS (hereinaf!:er 
referred to as "in service doctors"), who had passed their MBBS 
examination from a university/institution situate within the State ofUttar 
Pradesh. No other issue was raised in this writ petition. 
C 
7. This matter was taken up by the High Court on 15.05.2017 and 
in its order dated 15.05.2017, the High Court made reference to various 
circulars issued by the State ofUttar Pradesh from time to time and the 
Court raised certain queries in this order. Though the High Court in the 
writ petition was only concerned with one issue i.e. whether in service 
D 
doctors of PMHS cadre, who had obtained their MBBS degree from 
outside the State ofU.P. were entitled to benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of 
the 2000 Regulations, the High Court framed a number of questions 
pertaining to admission to
post-graduate courses in medical colleges and 
. asked the Chief Secretary to file a reply to the same. The High Court, 
E · 
without any material before it, also raked up the issue with regard to 
admissions to AMU and BHU and raised a query whether students, 
who had passed their MBBS/BDS final examination from colleges within 
the State ofU.P. were entitled for admission to AMU and BHU on the 
basis of their merit in the competitive examination. 
8. The Chief Secretary filed an affidavit stating that the medical 
education is governed by the Medical Council of India (for short "the 
MCI''), which is a statutory body set up under the Medical Council of 
India Act, 1956. Reference was made to Rule 9(iv) of the 2000 
Regulations, which reads as follows: 
"9. Procedure for Selection of Candidate for Post Graduate 
Courses shall be as follows:-
(i) 
(ii) 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
F 
G 
H
292 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 4 S.C.R. 
(iii) 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
(iv) The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/Institutions for 
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing 
in States/Union Territories. An All India merit list as well as 
State-wise merit list of eligible candidates shall be prepared 
B 
on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility cum 
Entrance Test and candidate shall be admitted to Post Graduate 
courses from the said merit list only; 
Provided that in determining the merit of candidate who are in 
service of Government/Public authority, weightage in th11 marks 
c . 
may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an 
incentive@ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service 
D 
·in remote and/or difficult areas up to a maximum of30% of the 
marks obtained in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test. The 
remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by the State 
Government/Competent authority from time to time ......... " 
9. In State ofU.P. & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (8) 
SCALE 16, this Court held that Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations 
was a complete Code in itself to determine inter se merit of the candidates 
and that the State was entitled to make a provision for giving weightage 
of marks as incentive to those in service candidates who have worked in 
E notified, remote or difficult areas in the State. The challenge in Dinesh 
Singh Chauhan's case was to the preference/advantage
given by 
Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations. This challenge was rejected. 
The Chief Secretary in his affidavit clearly stated that all in service 
candidates, who have worked in the notified, remote or difficult areas in 
F · 1he State were eligible for benefit of Regulation 9(iv) and no distinction 
could be made between those in service candidates, who have done 
their graduation from within the State ofU .P. or those who had done the 
graduation outside the State of U .P. Despite the clear cut stand of the 
State, the High Court held that the circulars giving institutional preference 
to students of AMU and BHU are contrary to 2000 Regulations. The 
G High Court further went on to held that weightage of inarks under Rule 
9(iv) was available only to those candidates, who had passed their MBBS 
examination from universities/institutions situated within the State ofU .P. 
H 
l 0. Admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges is done 
on the basis ofNEET. 50% of the seats are filled on merit on all India
.. 
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF lNDIA 
293 
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
basis and 50% of the seats are filled on merit drawn on State-wise A 
basis. Within the State merit list there is a provision for providing 
weightage to in service doctors as per Regulation 9(iv) to those doctors 
who have worked in remote or difficult areas. 
11. As far as the first question raised before us is concerned, we 
are clearly of the view that the High Court has over-stepped its jurisdiction 
B 
· and went beyond the scope of the writ petition while issuing the direction 
relating to AMU and BHU. This issue was admittedly not raised by the 
appellants/petitioners. These two universities were not even parties before 
the High Court. The selected candidates were not joined as respondents. 
Both these universities are central universities. The State Government 
had issued a circular on 31.03.2017 clarifying that students, who had 
C 
done their MBBS/BDS final year from AMU and BHU would be entitled 
for counselling only in the seats available in their own insti.tutes viz., 
AMU and BHU. It would be pertinent to mention that in the central 
universities 100% admissions for MBBS course are based on all India 
examination. There is no State quota for seats in central universities like 
D 
.AMU and BHU or other central institutions like All India Institute of 
Medical Sciences etc. It is, therefore, apparent that the State can have 
no control over the seats in those medical colleges
wh.ich are part of the 
central universities/institutions. These seats have to be filled up on the 
basis of merit and institutional preference could be given to the extent 
permissible i.e. 50%, as has been held by a catena of decisions including 
the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh 
Chaudri & Ors. v. Union ofindia & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146, wherein 
this Court held as follows: 
"72. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 
we are of the opinion that the original scheme as framed in Dr. 
Pradeep Jain v. Union oflndia, (1984) 3 SCC 654 should be 
reiterated in preference to Dr. Dinesh Kumar {II) v. Motilal Nehru 
Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727. Reservation by way of 
institutional preference, therefore, should be confined to 50% of 
the seats since it is in public interest. 
xxx 
74. AIIMS is an institution of excellence. It is a class by itself and 
pride. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in ABMS and the 
medical colleges of the Central University, merit should have 
E 
F 
G 
H
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
primacy subject of course to institutional preference to the extent 
of50% of the total seats in the MBBS course. In all other respects 
the decision of this Court in AIIMS Students' Union v. AllMS, 
(2002) l sec 428 shall operate." 
12. The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, which 
B had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged by any body 
before the High Court. As stated earlier, AMU and BHU were not 
parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India were 
also not parties before the High Court. The High Court did not take into 
consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri 
(supra) and other cases upholding institutional preferences in central 
C universities. The High Court did not also take into consideration the fact 
that the State had no power to control admissions to these universities. 
Therefore, as far as the first issue is concerned, we are clearly of the 
view that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and the order of the 
High Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 
D 
13. As far as the second issue is concerned, Rule 9(iv) clearly 
provides that an incentive at the rate of I 0% of the marks for each year 
can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served in remote 
or difficult areas subject to the condition that the highest incentive will • 
be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote and difficult areas is 
E
vested with the State Government. This power has been upheld by this 
Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan 's case (supra). It would be pertinent to 
mention that in this case, this Court only upheld this power and held that 
Rule 9 (iv) of the 2000 Regulations is a complete Code in itself. This 
Court was not dealing with the question as to whether the benefit of 
F 
weightage of marks for having served in remote or difficult areas could 
be given only to local in service doctors or to the entire category of in 
service doctors. 
14. In fact, Rule 9 (iv) itself only provides for weightage being 
given for each year, of service rendered in remote and difficult areas. 
The purpose behind this rule is that those doctors who willingly served in 
G remote and difficult areas should be given some preference while 
considering them for admission to post-graduate courses. The intention 
is to benefit those who left the comforts of towns and cities and are 
willing to work in difficult conditions in remote and difficult areas. The 
State ofU .P. had also issued a Circular which inter alia reads as follows: 
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. y,_~UNION OF INDIA 
295 
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
"9. Benefit ofWeightage/reservation to Medical Officers belonging A 
to PMHS category: 
In accordance with the judgment passed by Hon 'ble 
Supreme Court and Regulations framed by Medical and Health 
Department of the State as per MCI guidelines, the State 
Department shall issue no objection certificates to the MBBS 
B 
Degree Holding Doctors belonging to PMHS Cadre for counselling 
by giving weightage as per rules and the merit list shall be 
accordingly modified and they shall be given admission in the 
Government Medical Colleges/Universities/Private Medical 
Colleges. 
The proceedings for the PMHS category Medical Officers 
for Government Medical Colleges/Universities shall be taken in 
accordance with the Post Graduate Regulation, 2000 and policy 
framed vide Govt. Order No. 4197/med-3-l 6-G-179/2005 dated 
23.12.2016 issued by Medical Department." 
15. The aforesaid circular clearly mentions that benefit of Rule 
9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations shall be available to medical officers 
belonging to PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas. 
c 
D 
No distinction has been made between those who have graduated from 
within the State ofU.P. or those who have graduated from outside the 
State of U .P. Once the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified 
E 
their MBBS/BDS examination from within the State of U.P. or from 
any other part of the country, are selected and join
the medical health 
service in the State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e. PMHS. 
Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or difficult areas 
they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the basis as to which 
State they have done their graduation from. We, therefore, see no reason 
as to why the benefit ofweightage in terms of Regulation 9(iv) should 
F 
be limited to those in service candidates of the PMHS category, who 
have graduated from within the State ofU.P. This is a totally artificial 
distinction drawn up by the High Court. In fact, the State of U .P. had 
also not made any such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary G 
was categorical that the 2000 Regulations had not created such a divide 
or distinction. In this regard, we may make reference to the following 
portion of the affidavit of the Chief Secretary: 
"14. That since the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity 
of Regulation 9 and has categorized it as a complete code and a H
296 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 l 7] 4 S.C.R. 
provision for determining inte'r-se merit and grant of weightage to 
in-service candidates who have worked in notified, remote or 
difficult areas in the state, and there is nothing in the Post Graduate 
Medical Education Regulations 2000 to create a divide or a 
distinction between such of the in-house candidates who may have 
done their graduation from outside the State, therefore, no such 
divide is created at the level of the Director General Medical and 
Health while considering the cases of in-house candidates and 
giving weightage to them and thereafter recommending the name 
to the Direcfor General Medical Education for counselling." 
16. We, therefore, hold that the High Court erred in deciding that 
only those in service doctors who had cleared their MBBS examination 
from within the State of U.P., were only entitled to the benefit of 
Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations. 
17. We are also of the view that not only the High Court 
transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the writ petition 
D but by the impugned order set at naught the entire selection process only 
two days before the last datsi ofadmissions making it vi1tually impossible 
to comply with the direction of the High Comt within the sho1t period of 
two days. 
E 
18. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order dated 
"29.05.20 l 7 passed by the High Court and all directions issued by it. We 
also set aside all
consequential ~ction taken by the State ofU .P. or any 
other authority or institution pursttant to the directions of the High Court. 
19. The State ofUttar Pradesh has filed I.A. No. 45327 of20 l 7 
in Writ Petition (C) No.76of2015 praying for extension of the last date 
F 
of admission as laid dewn in Ashish Ranjan v. Union oflndia & Ors., 
(2016) I l SCC 22.5 for a period of one month to comply with the directions 
issued by the High Court. Since we have set aside the judgment of the 
High Court,. there is no need to re-draw the merit list. 
20. The learned counsel for the AMU has urged that the time for 
G filling up the seats be extended since on account of the confusion created 
by the order of the High Court a large number of seats are sti II lying 
vacant in the AMU. Similar request has also been made by the learned 
counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh on behalf of the Government run 
medical colleges/institutions. ln view of the order dated 18.01.20 l 6 
H passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 76 of 20 l 5 and connected
DR. SAURABH DWIVED! AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
297 
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 
matters titled Ashish Ranjan v. Union ofindia & Ors:, (2016) 11 SCC 
A 
225, normally we would be reluctant to extend the time. However, the 
present case has some peculiar facts of its own. The High Coutt has, 
on a totally erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the 
counselling on 29th May, 2017 which would have resulted in fresh 
counselling and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30'h or 
8 
31" May, 2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have 
taken only 2 days' time, would now require a minimum of5 or 6 days' 
time because action will have to be taken afresh. 
21. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment 
and order of the High Court and all consequential action taken by the 
State of U .P. and/or any other authority pursuant to that order. It is 
C 
clarified that those who were counselled and granted admission prior to 
the impugned judgement of the High Court shall be permitted to continue 
in their respective courses. The time for filling up the vacant seats, if 
any, in AMU, BHU and Government run medical colleges/institutions in 
the State ofU.P. is extended up to 12'
11 June, 2017 in the peculiar facts 
D 
and circumstances of the case. We further permit the AMU, BHU and 
Government run medical colleges/institutions in the State to fill up the 
seats in the post graduate courses in the AMU, BHU and Government 
run medical
colleges/institutions up to 12.06.2017. 
All the civil appeals as well as the interlocutory application(s) 
E 
relating to the State ofUttar Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 76of2015 
are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, 
also stand(s) disposed of. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals disposed of.