LexASHA versus PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 6 S.C.R. 876 ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2012) JULY 10, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) EDUCATION: Medical admissions - MBBS course - Candidate securing more marks and placed higher in merit list, ignored on the ground of absence in counseling during relevant time - Held: The rule of merit for preference of courses and 0 colleges admits no exception - It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur - Record indicates that the candidate was present in the counseling at the time of attendance and even subsequent thereto - Directions issued E for her admission to MBBS course. Medical admissions - Cut-off-date - Exception - Held: 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges wifhout fail - Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional F cases, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the courts only if the conditions stated by Supreme Court in the case of Priya Gupta and the instant judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied - Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the authorities G and the students both - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141. H Medical admissions -Refusal of admission if found arbitrary, violative of Rules and Regulations or contrary to judgments of Supreme Court - Remedy - Explained - Further 876 ASHA v. PT. B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH 877 SCIENCES & ORS. directions given in order to avoid ambiguity and to ensure that A authorities act in accordance with law. Medical admissions - Interim orders - Held: As has been held in Priya Gupta's case, courts should avoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter of dispute - The- 8 students who· pursue the courses under the courts' orders would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts - Equity. PLEADINGS: Denial of an averrnent - Held: An averrnent made by the appellant is expected to be specifically denied by the replying party - If there is no specific denial, then such averrnent is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. c The appellant, a candidate belonging to Backward D Class B (BCB) and Ex-Serviceman (ESM) category, secured 832 marks in the entrance examination for MBBS, BOS and BAMS and was put at serial no. 13 of the ESM category. In the first counselling held on 14-15th July, 20.11, being lower in merit, she could not get E admission in MBBS course and, therefore, she took admission in the BOS course. She participated in. the second counselling held on 20.9.2011, but her name waS' not declared for the admission, and respondent no. 3, who had secured less marks (821) than her and was F placed at sl. No. 14 in ESM category, was given admission in the MBBS course. She filed a writ petition before the High Court. The single Judge allowed her claim. The said order having been set aside by the Division Bench .of the High Court, the writ petitioner filed G the appeal Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The rule of merit for preference of courses H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R. A and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur. It will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and. duly notified by the States, if the rule of merit is B defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the rule of merit can be compromised. Circumvention of merit is not only impermissible, but is also abuse of the process of law. Relaxation of the rule of merit for reason c of non-appearance is not permissible. [para 22, 30 and 36(a)] [893-B; 896-C, D; 900-G] Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr. 2012 (7) SCC 433; Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2005) 13 SCC 464; Pradeep Jain v. UOl 1984 (3) SCR 942 = 1984 D (3) SCC 654; Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Director of Health Ser.vices and Another 1993 Supp (1) SCC 632; Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 = (1999) 7 SCC 120; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others 2005 (13) SCC 749; and A/IMS Students' Union v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.