This article is written by – Himanshu Shukla
The Supreme Court in the bench Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed that only in exceptional cases, a direction can be issued to grant admission to candidates of MBBS Course even after the cut-off date [merit based]. Also, there should be a condition that the student has to approach the Court at the earliest and without any delay.
Earlier in this case, while hearing the petition filed by NEET candidates, the High Court directed to admit the MBBS students to the first-year course for (2020-2021) in the vacant seats of the (2019-2020) session. The petitioner alleged that students with lower merit have been given admission to the MBBS course for the academic year (2019-2020).
In response to the High court’s order; the National Medical Council in its appeal pleaded that the judgment in Krishna Sradha cannot be taken into consideration to favor the students -as they approached the supreme court one and a half years after the last date of admission for the tutorial year 2019- 2020.
One crucial condition is that the scholar has got to approach the Court at the earliest and with no delay. It was further mentioned within the judgment that just in case admission is directed to tend to the scholars, the amount of seats allotted within the management quota for the next year has to be reduced.”
“The direction given by the Supreme Court pertains to the admission for the tutorial year 2019-2020. The Supreme Court ought to not have shown indulgence to the writ petitioners by directing admission within the vacant seats that arose within the year 2019-2020 and permit the students to start their course within the school year 2020-2021. We are aware that the interference by this Court would cause the loss of a tutorial year to the scholars. However, we cannot support the judgment of the Supreme Court in granting admission for the year 2020-2021 because it is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the S. Krishna Sradha (supra) case. The students approached the supreme court almost one and a half years after the last date of admission of the primary year MBBS course for the tutorial year 2019-2020.”
- If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in this process, if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost because of the eclipse of some schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimized for no fault of his/her and thus the court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused if any.
- When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously and promptly, then the courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in the form of securing an admission.
- No relief is often granted albeit the prospectus is said illegal or invalid if an equivalent isn’t challenged promptly. Once the candidate is aware that he/she doesn’t fulfill the standards of the prospectus he/she can’t be heard to state that, he/she chose to challenge an equivalent only after preferring the appliance and after an equivalent is refused on the bottom of eligibility.
- There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either by the court or the Board to increase the number of seats which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.