PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & Ors.

Delay and unauthorized extension of schedules defeat the principle of admission on merit, especially in relation to preferential choice of colleges and courses. Magnanimity in this respect, by condoning delayed admission, need not be shown by the Courts as it would clearly be at the cost of more meritorious students. The principle of merit cannot be so blatantly compromised. This was also affirmed by this Court in the case of Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. u2oos) s sec 1 ss1. (2) Mid-stream admissions are being permitted under the garb of extended counseling or by extension of periods for admission which, again, is impermissible. H (3) The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 777 (4) in the commencement of courses etc., A encourage lowering of the standards of education in the Medical/Dental Colleges by shortening the duration of the academic courses and promoting the chances of arbitrary and less meritorious admissions. B Inequities are created which are prejudicial to the interests of the students and the colleges and more importantly, affect the maintenance of prescribed standard of education. These inequities arise because the candidates secure C admission, with or without active connivance, by the manipulation and arbitrary handling of the prescribed schedules, at the cost of more meritorious candidates. When admissions are challenged, these students would run the risk D of losing their seats though they may have completed their course while litigation was pending in the court of competent jurisdiction. (5) The highly competitive standards for E admission to such colleges stand frustrated because of non-adherence to the prescribed time schedules. The admissions are stretched to the last date and then admissions are arbitrarily given by adopting impermissible F practices. (6) Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/ approved colleges and seats deprives the students of their right of fair choice of college/ course, on the strength of their merit. G (7) Preference should be to fill up all vacant seats, but under the garb that seats should not go waste, it would be impermissible to give admissions in an arbitrary manner and without H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A recourse to the prescribed rule of merit. [Para 26- 27] [811-E-H; 812-A-H; 813-A-G] Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2005) 9 sec 186 - relied on. s

#4. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the Governments and the Universities are expected to act in tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition for starting of the medical courses and grant of admission are strictly within the time frame declared by this Court c and the regulations. However, despite warnings having been issued by this Court and despite the observations made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously, matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by different authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarily and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this Court. The consistent effort of this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being thwarted by motivated action on the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also E been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time. [Para 28] [813- G-H; 814-A-F] 0 F Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 262; Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS (1994) 2 sec 370 - relied on.

#5. The maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere places an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it G resolves the causes of litigation in the country. Thus, the need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and statutory regulations be enforced, so that all concerned are mandatorily required to implement the time schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not even H advisable to keep some windows open to meet a PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 779 particular situation of exception, as it may pose A impediments to the smooth implementation of laws and defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed upon serious consideration by all concerned. They are to be applied stricto sensu and cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some B economic or other interest of any institution, especially, in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the stated principles. Thus, the following directions in rem are issued for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned,. c (i) The commencement of new courses or increase in seats of existing courses of MBBS/ BOS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year for the relevant academic D sessions of that year. (ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure commencement of admission process within one week thereafter. implementation and E (iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval F for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or G before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in accordance with the Rules. H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H (iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to .15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the concerned authority and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. (v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the State examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit. (vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. The practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year is strongly deprecated. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. ((2003) 3 SCC 366] and third PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 781 (vii) (viii) (ix) counseling is not contemplated or permitted A under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be 8 allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counseling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting C from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year. No college may grant admissions without duly D advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned E to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. F The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether G they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R. A B c 0 collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions. [Paras 29- 30) [814-G-H; 815-A-H; 816-A-H; 817-A-H] Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 366: 2003 (1) SCR 562 - relied on.

#6. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions:- E a) b) F G H Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedin~s before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc. The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. Violation of these directions or overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant. PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 783 c) d) e) f) Such defaulting authority, member or body A shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default. B There shall be due channelization of selection and admission process with full cooperation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government, Universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in C tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerted action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission arid regulations framed in this D behalf. The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/ approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of E the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the F college. Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States G and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A B college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counseling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counseling. h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner. [Para 31] [818-A-H; 819-A-F] C

#7. The instant case is a glaring example of calculated tampering with the schedule specified under the regulations and the judgments of this Court, with a clear intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over and above the candidates of higher merit. The High D Court had cancelled the admission of the appellants by a detailed and well-reasoned judgment. However, as a result of interim orders granted by the Court, both the appellants had already completed four years of the studies at the time of the High Court decision. They are E stated to have completed their final exam now. Despite having lost their case before the High Court, the appellants continued to pursue their professional courses because of the interim orders of the Court and, therefore, the plea of inequities was raised. On 30th F September, 2006, the Director, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to the Dean of the College, requiring that the Jagdalpur College provide the up-to date list of the students admitted to it and if there were any seats remaining vacant, guidance was to be taken G from the Directorate of the State Government. Another letter written by the Director, Medical Education, to the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and referring to their letter of the same date, which stated that two seats were . vacant, in turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and H the candidates be contacted over telephone. If contact PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 785 B could not be established with any candidate, then the A Jagdalpur College was directed to fill up the seats with the candidates physically present and available at the Jagdalpur College, according to merit. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College, on that very day, constituted a Committee to examine the certificates etc. of the available candidates and recommend the names on the basis of merit. Again, on that very day, the Committee recommended the names of the two appellants, declaring them to be eligible for getting admissions. More strangely, the Committee also noted that the fees from the c candidates had been deposited and they could be given admission. Then, by another letter dated 30th September, 2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director, Medical Education that the two appellants were given admission and the admission process for 50 seats had been completed. There was nothing placed on the records of the Court as to what steps were taken by the Jagdalpur College to inform all the other candidates of counseling on the last date. Also strange was the direction of the Directorate that.the candidates should be informed on telephone. Even if this direction was of some content and meaning, there is still no material to show how many candidates were actually informed on the telephone that there would be counseling for two seats. Thus, the questions remained open, as to the reason for total abandonment of the procedure of informing all eligible candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats were available for admissions, who all had actually appeared for the counseling, how only two candidates who even according to the State Government were not contacted on telephone, were alone present before the G Committee and immediately found to be eligible for admission. This entire exercise smacked of arbitrariness, unfairness and was discriminatory ex facie. Respondent No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in Chhattisgarh, is the father of appellant no.2 and that H E 0 F 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R. A speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted to the appellants. [Paras 33, 36-37] [820-A-D; 821-D-H; 822-A-F]

#8. The methodology adopted and the manner in which admissions were given to the appellants would B show that this process was neither fair nor transparent. In fact, within a few hours, the entire process of admission was completed, indicating that the whole exercise was undertaken only with the object of granting admission to the appellants, that too, as if no other C candidates of merit were available for these two seats. This view was entirely substantiated by the records produced before us. The prescribed procedure for grant of admission was given a go by and the rule of admission on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such o admission process. One fails to understand why no preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant seats were taken by any of the competent authorities involved in the entire process of selection and admission to MBBS courses. The students who had undertaken the PMT E examination had been allocated seats in the college on 23rd August, 2006. Not even a single document was placed on record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006 to 29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant seats. Everybody waited for the last date which, in fact, F was the date for joining the courses and not admission, whereafter the entire machinery in the Centre, State Government and the college acted so swiftly that within hours, the entire admission process was concluded to grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty of G fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College, the Directorate as well as the Committee constituted for counseling/selection could find only the candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614 suitable, completely ignoring all the candidates being higher in merit than these two appellants, who must a,lso H be waiting for admission to the MBBS course. Strangely, PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 787 the merit ranks of these two appellants, as given in the A letter of the DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 were 2196 and 2203 respectively. From every angle only one conclusion is possible that the allocation of seats was totally arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid down. The three members of the Selection Committee found only B these two candidates eligible and fit to be granted admission to the MBBS courses on the last day for admissions. To say the least, this Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the judgments of this c Court. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College is directed to convey the displeasure of this Court to the members of the Selection Committee and the same be placed on their respective service records. [Para 38] [822-G-H; 823-A-H; 824-A] D

#9. The Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the admission to the two appellants was not given in furtherance to the letter dated 8th August, 2006, but validly granted on 30th September, 2006 instead. Their report did not even mention if they had verified the fact that notices E had been issued to all the concerned persons on 30th September, 2006 and if other students had been contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was even made on 30th September, 2006 or even prior thereto to put these two vacant seats on the internet or notice F board of the colleges so as to enable the students of higher merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in the Jagdalpur College. This aspect attained a greater significance in view of the fact that the seats were not allotted in the second counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd G August, 2006. The Jagdalpur College, the Directorate of the State Government as well as the Union of India made no effort and did not act in coordination, to allot these two seats to the candidates in accordance with merit in the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee appears H to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It was not only expected of the Committee to examine the documents which were made available to it, as is recorded in the report, but also to call for all such necessary documents which were relevant and could s have bearing on the reference made to it. The Committee did not even care to know why everything was completed on 30th September, 2006 and how nobody . else except these two appellants were available for admission from amongst candidates in the entire State. c [Para 39) [824-B-H; 825-A-C] E

#10. Another aspect of this inquiry was that, even as on 30th September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which quota these two vacant seats belonged to. According to the State of Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of D the 15 per cent All India quota which stood surrendered after 23rd August, 2006. According to the appellants, they were Central Pool quota seats which stood surrendered to the State on 30th September, 2006 only. According to the Union of India, they had not made any allotment to the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College from the All India Quota, and even the code number given on the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not ad idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and F who was the competent authority to allot the seats, none of them had any business to allot these two seats in such an arbitrary manner. Even now, there is no clarity as to how and under what quota the Jagdalpur College has granted admission to these two appellants. The inquiry G report, in fact, did not help to resolve the issue and cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any finding in favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings returned by the Inquiry Committee would appear to be inconclusive, uncertain and vague. Be that as it may, H there is no escape from returning the finding that PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 789 admission of both the appellants was made in a most A • . improper and arbitrary manner. The whole exercise was undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only one aim in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be given admission in the Jagdalpur College. [para 40] [825-C-H; 826-A] B

#11. The cancellation of the admission of the appellants was challenged by the appellants before the . High Court, which allowed continuation of study under interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ petitions filed by these appellants. At that time, they had C already completed more than four years of the MBBS course to which they were admitted. Today, they have already appeared for their final examination. The Jagdalpur College ought to have declared these two seats as being available for admission when the D counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006 and that there was violation of the basic principles of equality of opportunity and of equal consideration for allotment of seats. Candidates of higher merit stand excluded. Another challenge which was raised on behalf of the E appellants was that the order of cancellation dated 10th September, 2010 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to these two appellants and, therefore, the order was liable to be set aside, being violative of principles of natural justice. It is, in fact, not F in dispute that no specific notice was given to the appellants before the impugned order was passed. It is not necessary for this Court to examine this submission in any greater detail because the appellants have now had two occasions to put forward their claim before the G Court. The High Court considered various aspects of the case and gave a complete hearing to the appellants. No prejudice was caused to them, inasmuch as they have pursued their studies despite cancellation of admission and have now been duly heard by the High Court, as well H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A as this Court. Hence, this ground of challenge did not, in any case, survive, particularly since it is held the admission to these appellants was given in a completely arbitrary and unfair manner. [Paras 42-43] [826-C-H; 827- A-C] B

#12. In the instant case, the fault is attributed to all the stakeholders involved in the process of admission, i.e., the concerned Ministry of the Union of India, Directorate of Medical Education in the State of Chhattisgarh, the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the three Members c of the Committee which granted admission to both the appellants on 30th September, 2006. But the students were also not innocent. They certainly took advantage of being persons of influence. The father of appellant No. 2 was the Director of Medical Education, State of 0 Chhattisgarh at the relevant time, the entire process of admission was handled through the Directorate. The students well knew that the admissions could only be given on the basis of merit in the entrance test and they had not ranked so high that they were entitled to the E admission on that basis alone. In fact, they were also aware of the fact that no other candidate had been informed and that no one was present due to non intimation. Out of favouritism and arbitrariness, they had been given admission by completing the entire admission process within a few hours on 30th September, 2006. F Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable. Some party or the other would suffer a set back or adverse consequence from the order of the Court. On the one hand, if admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically completed their MBBS course would G lose their professional education as well as nearly five years of their life spent in such education. If their admissions are protected, then the standard of education, the merit of the candidates and the desirability of the persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated. H The best solution to such problems is strict adherence PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 791 to the time schedule, procedure for selection/admission A and strict observance of the Medical Council of India Regulations, by all concerned. Once these factors are adhered to, not only would such situation not arise, but also it will prevent avoidable litigation before the Courts. The persons who violate the time schedule to grant B admissions in an arbitrary manner and by colourable exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this Court, should be dealt with strictly by punishment in accordance with law, to prevent such mischief from c repeating. In the instant case, the appellants had already sat for their final examination and are about to complete their courses. Even if their admissions are protected on the ground of equity, they cannot be granted such relief except on appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, 0 other candidates of higher merit have been denied admission in the MBBS course. Secondly, they have taken advantage of a very low professional college fee, as in private or colleges other than the government colleges, the fee payable would be Rs.1,95,000/- per year E for general admission and for management quota, the fee payable would be Rs.4,00,000/- per year, but in government colleges, it is Rs.4,000/- per year. So, they have taken a double advantage. As per their merit, they obviously would not have got admission into the Jagdalpur College and would have been given admission in private colleges. The ranks that they obtained in the competitive examination clearly depict this possibility, because there were only 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College and there were hundreds of candidates above the appellants in the order of merit. G They have also, arbitrarily and unfairly, benefitted from lower fees charged in the Jagdalpur College. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though there is no legal or other infirmity in the judgment under appeal, but to do complete justice between the parties F H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A within the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the appellants are permitted to complete their professional courses, subject to the condition that each one of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Jagdalpur College, which amount shall be utilized for developing the infrastructure in the Jagdalpur College. Heavy cost is imposed upon these appellants to ensure that such admissions are neither accepted nor granted leave to complete their medical courses in future. [Paras 48-51] [828-G-H; 829-A-H; 830-A-H] B C

#13. Accordingly, it is ordered that though, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of t~e case, the appellants are permitted to complete their o MBBS course as general candidates in the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur, subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today. In the event of default of payment or failure to file proof of payment in the Registry of this Court, not only will the E present appeal stand dismissed on merits, but the exam results of the defaulting appellant will not be declared, they will not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by the Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India shall not register their names on the rolls maintained by it or the State Council, as the case may be. For these reasons, if their admissions are cancelled, there being no claimants for these seats, the seats will go waste and the entire expenditure incurred by the State would also be wasted. After so many years, it would be an exercise in G futility to cancel their admissions, which, but for the interim orders, could be avoided. An undue advantage from the interim orders has accrued in favour of the appellants. The High Courts are requested to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. Except in very H ·exceptional cases, the High Court may consider it F PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 793 appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main A petitions finally, subject to convenience of the Court. All the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have B prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not c to overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities/colleges. Therefore, initiation of proceedings is directed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, D Union of India, Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education, Dean of the Jagdalpur College, Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee, Dr. P.O. Agarwal, Member of the Selection Committee, Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection Committee, Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of India. All concerned E authorities are hereby directed to carry out the directions and orders contained in this judgment, particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the academic year 2012- 2013 itself. [Para 53) [831-C-H; 832-A-H; 833~A-C) F State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 83: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797; Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2004) 11 SCC 755: 2004 (2) SCR 775; Chowdhury Navin. G Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 617: 2011 (2) SCR 1071 Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 69: 2003 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 833; A. Sudha v. University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537: 1988 (1) SCR 368; Amandeep Jaswal v. State of Punjab H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S. C.R.