Courts cannot discharge orders purely on sympathy: Supreme Court of India

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 Petitionand Abdul The review petitioners were not a party to the said petitions. They were admitted in 1st year Professional MBBS College which was affiliated to the Glocal University a deemed The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present The review petitioners appeared in the National Eligibility­cum­ Entrance Test after deducting the pool of 15% for All The said Notification dated 2.9.2016 came to be passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court came to be challenged by the original writ petitioners before 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 order passed in the petitions for special leave to No.28886 of 2016] and the one filed by Glocal University “As an interim measure it is directed that petitioner­University in S.L.P. Nos 31037­31038 of 2016 may appear in the examination but their results shall not be published.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 It further appears that in the meantime the Medical Council of India issued a and directed to discharge 67 students admitted by it whose names did not figure in the list supplied by the Director 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 No. 411 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 18.9.2017 while disposing of the said petition with pursuance of the letter of permission granted for the year 2016­2017 shall be First Year Professional MBBS examination and cleared the same. However Glocal Medical College did not conduct the Petition No.19399 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court According to the review petitioners only during the hearing of assailing the order of MCI dated 27.1.2017. The Allahabad High Court disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to No.1287 of 2019 before this Court challenging the discharge order but the same was dismissed with liberty to file an application for intervention in the pending Special Leave writ petitioners as stated above. The review petitioners of 2016. By the order under review dated 20.7.2020 the Seeking review the present Review Petitions are filed 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 Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners would submit that the as they had cleared the NEET examination. He further submitted that the review petitioners were admitted through only that but they have also cleared the 1st year and 2nd year As against this learned counsel for MCI as well as submitted that their admission is the result of collusion 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 After due consideration and in continuation to the aforesaid notification dated 20.08.2016 decision has been taken for getting university of private sector through 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 based on NEET 2016. It will be relevant to refer to the “(i) Subject to what has been held hereinabove the impugned orders for all institutions for admission to MBBS BDS medical courses in the State based on NEET 2016 do not to admit the students of their community based on Centralized basis of NEET 2016 to the extent permissible but without deviating from the merit of such students as to sub­serve their minority status under Article 30(1 It could thus clearly be seen that though minority institutions were allowed to admit the students of their Though Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul learned Senior Counsel tried to submit that the Notification dated 22.8.2016 of this Court in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 17 SCC 353 “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 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 to secure merit­based admission on a transparent basis. If private unaided where it would impinge upon the “right to 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 ii) merit apart from preventing Thus having regard to the larger interest and merit and achieve excellence and curb State to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single­window procedure Holding such CET followed by centralised counselling or single­window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent on the fundamental rights of the of occupation” in running the educational equally they have the responsibility of selecting meritorious and suitable candidates in order to bring out professionals with excellence. Rights of 169. By holding common entrance test and is merely providing the merit list of the candidates prepared on the basis of a fair conducted on merit basis no loss will be the private educational institutions. There is neither restriction on the entry of the students in the sanctioned 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 It will further be apposite to note that some private medical colleges had conducted their own counselling for State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a contempt petition. The Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey and others2. It “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We observe that mandate of our judgment 7 SCC 353:7 SCEC 1] was to hold centralised entrance test followed by 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 29 SCC 412 6. If any counselling has been done by any college or university and any admission to admission shall stand cancelled forthwith and admission shall be given only as per centralised counselling done by the State It could thus clearly be seen that the private counselling by Glocal Medical College was conducted contrary Notification in turn was based on the judgment of this Court supra) which was decided on 2.5.2016. Not only that but this Court by order dated 22.9.2016 had further clarified the 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 for the Glocal Medical College to have conducted private counselling. The admissions which were conducted through we will not be in a position to do anything to protect the apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed The courts should not to stand. embarrass academic authorities by 34 SCC 401 It will further be appropriate to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh v “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 served to create an impression that even 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 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 Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and 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 4 1995 SuppSCC 188 be entitled on the basis of his marks to a over in our opinion is misuse of power purity of academic processes we should quash the selection and admission of Respondent 6. We do so though however 510 SCC 264 617 SCC 611 students. Reversing the judgment of the High Court this Court “10. The misplaced sympathies should not In our opinion that is precisely what has of the judgment this Court observed as earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course the matter deserves to be considered and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions against the student was admitted in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the It will further be relevant to refer to the following “3. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But unfortunately some of the the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they have 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 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 71 SCC 223 The Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the the admissions were to be done only through the centralized In such a situation no sympathies can be shown to same college who were admitted through the centralized other colleges. As such the contention of the review dated 27.1.2017 issued by MCI only when they had filed a 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 cleared the 2nd year MBBS examination despite the fact that 18.9.2017 in the writ petition filed by Glocal Medical College In the result the Review Petitions are without merit and as such dismissed. Consequently all pending

Summary: Courts are not allowed to issue orders on a sympathetic basis when the said parties are involved in activities that are illegal and such an activity has put other people at a disadvantage. This was held by the three judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Justice B. R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari in the case of Abdul Ahad and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. [REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1835­1836 OF 2020 IN I.A. NO.183249 OF 2019] on the 17th of August, 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are, the review petitioners appeared in the NEET exam and cleared the same and were eligible to get admission in the MBBS course. 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. 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. 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. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, he 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. The learned counsel for the state submitted that, the review petitioners were admitted by backdoor entry. It is submitted that their 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. The learned judges heard the submission of both the parties and relied on the judgement in Gurdeep Singh v. State of J &amp; K and Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, wherein it was held that, “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”.