ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 17-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Review Petition (Civil) Nos.1835-1836 of 2020 in I.A. No.183249 of
2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016)
AUGUST 17, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Admission to MBBS/BDS
Courses – Conduct of centralized counselling – On facts, admission
of students to 1st year Professional MBBS Course for Academic
Session 2016-17 in the Medical College – Admission carried out in
contravention of the Notification that provided that admission were
to be done only through the centralized admission process and not
by way of private counselling – 67 students admitted by the Medical
College, discharged by Medical Council of India – Challenge to –
Matter reached till Review Petition in Supreme Court – Review
petitioners’ case that having qualified NEET exam, they became
eligible to get admission; that they were admitted through counselling
conducted by the medical college; and that they have cleared 1st
and 2nd year examination – Held: Notification issued by the State
on the basis of the law laid down by this Court clearly provided
that the admissions were to be done only through the centralized
admission process – Medical College in contravention of the said
Notification conducted private counselling, which was not at all
permissible in law – Admissions conducted through the said private
counselling per se illegal – Students cannot be said to be ignorant
about the Notification issued by the State – In such a situation, no
sympathies can be shown to such students who have entered through
backdoor.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though minority institutions were allowed to
admit the students of their community based on Centralized
Counselling held by the State on the basis of NEET 2016, the
same was to be done without deviating from the merit of the said
students. The Notification 22.08.2016 is only an administrative
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1006
1006
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
instruction and therefore not binding, cannot be accepted. [Para
21, 22][1013-H; 1014-A-B]
1.2 The private counselling by Glocal Medical College was
conducted contrary to the Notification issued by the State of Uttar
Pradesh, which Notification, in turn, was based on the judgment
of this Court in the case of Modern Dental College and Research
Centre case, decided on 2.5.2016. Not only that, but this Court
by order dated 22.9.2016 had further clarified the position. 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 22.8.2016. [Para 25,
26][1016-B-D]
1.3 In the light of this position, it was not at all permissible
for the Glocal Medical College to have conducted private
counselling. The admissions which were conducted through the
said private counselling cannot be termed as anything else but
per se illegal. Though there is sympathy with the students, but
this Court will not be in a position to do anything to protect the
admissions, which were done in a patently illegal manner. [Para
27, 28][1016-D-E]
1.4 It will not be possible to consider the cases of the review
petitioners sympathetically. The Notification issued by the State
of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the law laid down by this Court
clearly provided that the admissions were to be done only through
the centralized admission process. Glocal Medical College in
contravention of the said Notification conducted private
counselling, which was not at all permissible in law. The students
cannot be said to be ignorant about the Notification issued by the
State of Uttar Pradesh. In such a situation, no sympathies can be
shown to such students who have entered through backdoor.
Apart from that, MCI vide order dated 27.1.2017 had discharged
the said students, who were not admitted through centralized
admission process. It is pertinent to note that 25 students
admitted in the same college, who were admitted through the
centralized admission process, were very much absorbed by the
DGME in other colleges. As such, the contention of the review
petitioners that they came to know about the discharge order
ABDUL AHAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
dated 27.1.2017 issued by MCI only when they had filed a petition
in the High Court in 2019 does not s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.