ARVIND KUMAR KANKANE versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 03-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARVIND KUMAR KANKANE 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 3, 2001 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Education 
Post-Graduate Medical Courses-Admissions-Rules-Framing of-
C Counselling process-Allotment of subjects after option exercised by candidates 
to be final and subject to no change-Seats falling vacant subsequently-To 
be filled in from candidates wait listed as per merits-On challenge, Single 
Judge of High Court holding that subsequently fallen vacant seats should also 
be offered to all candidates-On appeal, Division Bench of High Court holding 
D that if subsequently fallen vacant seats are offered to all candidates, it would 
upset the entire counselling process-On appeal held, Division Bench of High 
Court was justified in its findings. 
Government framed certain Rules for admission to post-graduate 
medical courses. The said Rules provided that option exercised by a candidate 
E in first counselling regarding allotment of subject and college would be final 
and not subject to change. Candidates who did not exercise their option at 
the time of counselling would be kept in the waiting list and if at any 
subsequent stage a seat falls vacant, the same would be allotted to them. On 
challenge, Single Judge of High Court held that subsequently fallen vacant 
seat would be offered to all candidates; and candidates already allotted seats 
F in first counselling would also be permitted to exercise their option. However, 
on appeal, the Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge 
holding that any seat which was available and which was not included in any 
of the counselling by mistake would be filled in, in order of merit amongst 
the wait listed candidates and if it was offered for candidates, a chain reaction 
G would start which would upset the entire counselling process. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Division Bench of High Court was justified in holding that 
any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the 
H 
262 
1-
-
A.K. KANKANE v. STATE OF U.P. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
263 
counselling by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit amongst the wait A 
listed candidates. Once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of 
which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to 
participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process 
of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may 
not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period. B 
(264-F; 265-C, DI 
Dr. Veena Gupta v. University of Delhi, AIR (1994) Delhi 108 (FB) and 
Anil Jain v. The Controller of Examinations, (1998) 3 E.S.C. Cases 2016, 
approved. 
2. The grievance that if a choice subject like surgery and medicine is C 
given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate 
who is lower in rank in the merit list, is only a fortuitous circumstance 
depending on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a 
seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and 
thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit D 
list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test ofreasonableness of the rule. 
(265-E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2649-51 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I I .2.2000 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. Nos. 1282, 1301 and 1374 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 4752 of2000 and SLP (C) No. 5151/2000. 
Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Subodh Markandaya, Yatish Mohan, Pankaj Kumar 
Singh, K.L. Janjani, Pradeep Misra, Ms. Indu Misra, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, 
Ms. Feroze Bano, Dr. l.B. Gaur, D.S. Mahara and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. : 
C.A. Nos. 2649-2651/2000 
E 
F 
G 
In relation to admission to post-graduate medical courses, Rules were 
framed under the Government order issued on March 30, 1994; it was provided H 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A therein that the allotment of subject [speciality] and college of study made on 
the basis of option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be 
permitted to change the subject or the college. A candidate who does not 
exercise his option at the time of counselling will be kept in the waiting list 
and if at any subsequent stage a seat falls vacant the same shall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.