MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY & Anr. v. AKRITI SHARMA & Ors.

admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3 – However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 –By the time the High Court decided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over – The prescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellants is 150 students – The consequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the first respondent increases the intake of the college to 151 seats but the one student who would be the lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directed to the first respondent – As already 5 months of the first session for the MBBS course have been completed, hence, direction of the High Court to grant admission to the first respondent cannot be acceded – However, compensation granted to first respondent. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:

Clause 3 of the prospectus stipulates that after the completion of the first and second rounds of counselling, a schedule for the mop up round shall be issued by the university and the online counselling form would be made available. Candidates who are eligible for participating in the mop up round have to fill up fresh choices/ preferences in respect of the course, college and quota online. Shifting for up-gradation of a course and quota from private dental colleges to government dental colleges and government/ private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and government dental colleges/ MMMC Solan to government medical colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/ preferences has to be allowed. The provisions of clause 3 are abundantly clear. The first respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. She was therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3. Clause 4 of the prospectus provides that students belonging to Himachal Pradesh who were admitted under the management quota in private medical/dental colleges will also be converted automatically from the management quota to the state quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop out seats, if any, in order of merit. As the High Court has correctly observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop out seats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains A B C D E F G H MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER v. AKRITI SHARMA 1115 after the mop up round of counselling is completed. Hence, the interpretation which has been placed by the High Court on clauses 3 and 4 of the prospectus cannot be faulted. [Paras 17 and 18][1123-E-H; 1124-A-B]

In the instant proceedings, the High Court understandably held that the first respondent was wrongfully denied admission in the medical college run by the appellants. However, the admissions for the MBBS degree courses were concluded on 25 March 2022 for the academic session 2021-2022. Undoubtedly, there were no laches on the part of the first respondent in moving the High Court since she had instituted a writ petition on 29 March 2022. Nonetheless, by the time the High Court decided the issue, the admissions had already been concluded and the last prescribed date for admission was over. [Para 22][1126-F-G]

The fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents who were the three students who were upgraded in terms of clause 4 of the prospectus were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The issue however does not rest only with these three students. The prescribed intake capacity of the medical college of the appellants is 150 students. The consequence of the direction of the High Court to redraw the merit list and grant admission to the first respondent gives rise to certain unfeasible outcomes. The total strength of the students admitted for the MBBS course for the academic session 2021-2022 would stand increased to 151 students and one of the three students among the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents would be reverted to the management quota, but the matter would not rest there. Once the intake of the college increases to 151 seats after the admission of the first respondent, one student who would be the lowest in merit would have to give way for the admission which is directed to the first respondent. That student would not have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the High Court. Compounded with the above position is the fact that five months of the first session for the MBBS degree course for the academic year 2021- 2022 have been completed and the admitted students are pursuing their studies. In this view of the matter, it may not be possible for this Court to accede to the direction of the High Court for the A B C D E F G H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. grant of admission to the first respondent. The alternative submission which has been urged cannot also be acceded to because it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct that admission be granted to the first respondent against the seats available for the ensuing academic year 2022-2023. Those seats should be filled on a competitive basis in accordance with the governing prospectus. [Para 23][1127-A-E]

The first respondent cannot be left without any remedy. She has suffered though she ranked higher than the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET-UG 2021. She has been deprived of the admission to which she was entitled under clause 3 of the prospectus by an erroneous interpretation. Although the first respondent is currently pursuing her BDS course in a government dental college, she aspires to a seat for the MBBS degree course. The loss of one full academic year of the MBBS degree course can only be partially compensated in terms of money. However, compensation must be provided to the first respondent and she cannot be left in the lurch having lost a seat for admission for the MBBS degree course. [Para 24][1127-F-H]