High Court · 2025
Facts
3.WP-12129-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWrit Petition No. 12129 Of 2024WithCivil Application No. 12060 Of 2024in Writ Petition No.12129/2024Grishma d/o Nanrendra KhaireAge : 18 years, Occupation-Student,Permanent R/o C-32, Methila Apartment,Shivaji Complex, Mankapur,Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. .. Petitioner Versus1.The Commissioner of State CommonEntrance Cell, 8th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Road,Fort, Mumbai – 400001.2.The Admission Regulatory AuthorityDuly constituted by the Commissioner of State CommonEntrance Cell,8th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Road,Fort, Mumbai – 400001.3.Dr. N.Y. Tasgaonkar Institute ofMedical Sciences, KarjatDistrict Raigad,Through its Dean. .. Respondents****** Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. Majit S. Shaikh,Advocate for the Petitioners.* Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.*****[1] 3.WP-12129-2024.odt CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.. RESERVED ON : 10th FEBRUARY 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 20th FEBRUARY 2025 J U D G M E N T (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent ofthe parties. 2.Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and shesecured 533 out of 720 marks in NEET-UG for 2024-2025. Shewas allotted a seat in Respondent No.3/College for M.B.B.S. Shewas denied admission as she did not report the College withinstipulated time. She has approached this Court seeking directionto confirm her seat in the Respondent No.3/College. 3.It is expedient to disclose the background of this petition.Petitioner was allotted B.D.S. College which was at Hingoli in theyear 2023-2024. She had submitted original documents. She didnot continue with the said College and appeared for NEET-UG2024. She was issued a letter allotting a seat provisionally in theRespondent No.3/College. Her earlier College at Hingoli fromwhich she had resigned withheld her documents. Being aggrievedshe had to file Writ Petition No.1194/2024. It was disposed of byorder dated 24.10.2024 with a direction to return all the originaldocuments. After collecting the documents, when she reachedRespondent No.3/College, time for reporting was over. [2]
Legal Reasoning
3.WP-12129-2024.odtwas held by the Apex Court that the student was entitled torestoration of his seat in the next year and the compensationwas also awarded. The facts of the case in hand aredistinguishable. The benefit of the judgment cannot be given tothe petitioner in the present case. 22.Mr. Karlekar relied on the judgment of the Pallavi ManoharDalvi (supra). We have considered paragraph no.19 of thejudgment. We have already recorded that the petitioner failed toreport the college in time and the respondent no.3/Collegecannot be held liable for any lapses. Further reliance is placed onthe judgment in the matter of Mahatma Gandhi Missions Instituteand Others (supra). There is no dispute that brochure is acomplete and composite document for entrance examination,declaration of result, general instructions and method ofadmission. It is binding on the stake holders. 23.We find that we are unable to grant any relief to thepetitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 24.Civil Application stands disposed of.[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGEnajeeb..[10]
Arguments
3.WP-12129-2024.odt4.It was represented that the seat was vacant and she couldbe accommodated to it by extending time. In the vacationelaborate order was passed on 31.10.2024. Considering thedevelopments that the seat matrix for CAP round – III waspublished on 25.10.2024. The declaration of the list of onlinevacancy was scheduled on 28.10.2024. The direction toaccommodate her in the Respondent No.3/College was denied.She preferred Civil Application No.12060/2024 and solicitedorder on 05.11.2024 representing that till 04.11.2024 one seatreserved for SC (woman) was displayed to be vacant. Thedirection was issued restraining the Respondents from allottingseat in any manner which was allotted to the Petitionerprovisionally. Later on it was transpired that no seat wasavailable and already incumbent joined the RespondentNo.3/College. 5.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit-in-reply onrecord. It is contended that no seat was available on 05.11.2024.The Petitioner is disqualified as she abandoned her BDS Course.It is not possible to accommodate her either in the RespondentNo.3/College or in any other College. 6.Respondent no.3/College did not cause the appearancedespite service of notice for final hearing. It is not disclosed to usas to who is the candidate joining the Respondent No.3/Collegeagainst the seat which was provisionally allotted to the Petitioner.That person is not party to the petition. 7.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record[3] 3.WP-12129-2024.odtbrochure of NEET-UG 2024. It is canvassed that Petitioner iswrongly denied the admission and there was no mistake on herpart. She was entitled for extension of time and there isdiscrimination at the instance of Respondents for not extendingtime. On 04.11.2024 up to 07:00 pm., a vacancy of SC (woman)was displayed and thereafter prohibitory order was passed on05.11.2024. Respondent No.3/College wrongly admitted astudent against seat allotted to the Petitioner. The said College isliable for the action. It is further submitted that thedisqualification is not automatic and there is no decision byMaharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik till this date. 8.It is submitted that this is a rarest case where indulgence ofthis Court is necessary for creating a post to accommodate thePetitioner or to permit the Petitioner to be adjusted in the nextyear by reducing one seat of the Respondent No.3/College. It iscontended that in the alternative petitioner is entitled tocompensation. Reliance is placed on the judgments in thematters of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh andOthers, (2020) 17 SCC 465; Ramkrishna Medical College Hospitaland Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,Special Leave Petition (C) No.11785/2024; Vansh s/o PrakashDolas Vs. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare and Others, Special Leave Petition (C)No.26179-26180/2023. 9.Mr. S.G. Karlekar appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2has canvassed submission as per his affidavit-in-reply. He has[4] 3.WP-12129-2024.odtplaced reliance on Pallavi Manohar Dalvi and Others Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Others, 2022 DGLS(Bom.) 1475 and MahatmaGandhi Missions Institute and Others Vs. State of Maharashtraand Others, 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 545. 10.Having heard both sides, at the outset, we have toappreciate that the Petitioner is a meritorious candidate andbelongs to a reserved category. She could have securedadmission under normal course of circumstances. It isconundrum as to why she did not get a seat prior to CAP round –III having scored 533 out of 720 marks. It is also not understoodas to what prevented her in approaching RespondentNo.3/College immediately, after being allotted a seatprovisionally vide letter dated 20.10.2024. When 24.10.2024 wasthe last date for reporting Respondent No.3/College, she couldhave promptly reported and secured the seat. Instead ofpersonally going to the College at Hingoli for collecting thedocuments and thereafter rushing to the RespondentNo.3/College, beyond the cut of time, she could have securedadmission first with the Respondent No.3/College and requestedto grant time for submitting the documents.11.It has been strenuously argued by learned Counsel Mr.Deshmukh that she was not at fault and the Respondentno.3/College deliberately denied the admission. In the matters ofadmissions to Under Graduate Medical Course, time line issacrosanct. The student and the parents have to be alertotherwise they have to face irresistible situation. It would not[5] 3.WP-12129-2024.odtpossible for the Writ Court to extend time line or to create a seatunder normal course of circumstances. It is the centralizedadmission process which is complex. The norms stipulated in thebrochure governing the process are fixed by the experts. TheWrit Court cannot cause indulgence just on the basis ofsympathies or equities. We are faced with such a situation. 12.We have to accept the statements of Mr. S.G. Karlekar andrely on his affidavit that no seat is available with the RespondentNo.3/College or at any place to accommodate the Petitioner.Respondent No.3/College is not before us despite of service ofnotice. A candidate who is allotted a seat which was provisionallyallotted to the Petitioner is not party before us. We are unable togrant relief of restoring admission to the Petitioner by cancelingthe admission of the student who is not party to the petition. Theacademic year of M.B.B.S. has already begun. 13.Petitioner failed to report the Respondent No.3/College intime. It is not her case that on 24.10.2024 she reported in timebut the Respondent No.3/College denied her admission. It is notdisclosed by her the time and date when she reported theRespondent No.3/College. Though she was armed withprovisional allotment letter, no right was created for admission inthe Respondent No.3/College. We find that she failed to makeout a case that the Respondent No.3/College deliberately deniedher admission though she was punctual in reporting the College. 14.It is contended by the Petitioner that up to the evening of[6] 3.WP-12129-2024.odt04.11.2024, there was vacancy of two seats including one for SC(woman). On 05.11.2024, interim direction was issued by thelearned vacation Judge restraining the Respondents fromadmitting a student. When those orders were passed,Respondent No.3/College was not before the vacation Court. It isnot clear as to when incumbent was allotted a seat in theRespondent No.3/College to which the Petitioner was takingclaim. Neither the College is before us, nor the concernedstudent. In all probabilities, the said student might have beenallotted the seat before the vacation Court could pass orders on05.11.2024. We are unable to fix any liability on the RespondentNo.3/College. 15.Our attention is adverted to the provisions of brochure ofNEET-UG-2024 to buttress the submission that it was notpermissible to allot seat to the incumbent. We have gone throughthe notes appended to Clause Nos. 11.1.9 as well as letter dated24.07.2023. We have also considered order passed by thecoordinate bench at Principal Seat on 25.10.2024 in Writ PetitionNo.12646/2024. We need not address an issue of validity ofallotment of seat to a person in the Respondent No.3/College forwhich the Petitioner is staking claim. In the absence of Collegeand in absence of any specific challenge in the petition, wecannot entertain the submissions in this regard. 16.It is emphasized by learned Counsel Mr. S.G. Karlekar thatPetitioner has already incurred disqualification as per Clause ofNEET-UG-2023 which is as under :[7] 3.WP-12129-2024.odt11.2.4. DISQUALIFICATION FOR ADMISSION.The candidate who was allotted a seat in any course underMUHS Nashik in previous year(s) and who vacates/ abandonsit after availing the said seat, has completed such aperiod of course which would result into lapse of the saidseat..Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik shalltake the decision regarding eligibility and granting ofthe term of selected candidates. The selection of acandidate by the Competent Authority at a later date doesnot place onus to accord approval for grant of term. 17.The Petitioner was allotted seat in a College at Hingoli forB.D.S. in 2023-2024 which was abandoned by her. As she wasrequired to file petition for getting back the documents from thesaid College and she was paid the scholarship also, it is apparentthat admission was confirmed and thereafter it was abandoned.There is every possibility of incurring disqualification. It is up tothe Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to takefurther action to decide eligibility of the Petitioner. We are notpointed out any further action taken against her. Simultaneouslywe cannot come to definite conclusion that due todisqualification, Petitioner was ineligible to participate in theadmission process of 2024-2025 and consequentially allotment ofseat to her in the Respondent No.3/College was bad in law. It isleft open for competent authority. 18.We have already recorded that petitioner failed to provethat she was being denied a seat deliberately and theRespondent No.3/College is liable for the action. The petitioner isalso failed to make out any rarest of the rare case to issuedirection to create a post for her. The admission process isregulated by brochure of NEET-UG-2024. We have not come[8] 3.WP-12129-2024.odtacross any provision for creating a seat, albeit in exceptionalcircumstances or awarding compensation. In view of ClauseNo.1.6 of the brochure, the performance in the entrance test isvalid only for the academic year for which the NEET examinationswere held i.e. 2024-2025. There is no promise for admission forthe subsequent years. We find that no case is made out forawarding compensation.19.Petitioner relied on the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha(supra). The ratio is laid down in paragraph no.12 and 13.Applying parameters stated in paragraph no.12 and theparagraph no.12.1, we are of the considered view that petitionerfailed to make out a case that she was illegally denied theadmission and there was no fault on her part. 20.Petitioner further relied on the judgment in the matter ofRamkrishna Medical College Hospital and Research Centre(supra), Special Leave Petition (C) No.11785/2024;. We havegone through paragraph no.21 of the judgment. We find that it isnot a fit case to direct creation of a seat for the petitioner for thisacademic year. 21.Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter ofVansh s/o Prakash Dolas (supra). We have considered paragraphnos. 22 to 28. In that case appellant was illegally deprived fromhis rightful admission in the first year of M.B.B.S. He wasallotted a seat which was cancelled without following dueprocedure of law. In that contest referring to various judgment, it[9]