DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus SAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 975 · Decided: 21-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 975
975
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
SAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7611 of 2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ]
Chhattisgarh Dental Medicine Postgraduate Admission Rules,
2017 – Dentists Act, 1948 – Dental Council of India – Postgraduate
Dental Course – Admission – The National Board of Examination
conducted NEET MDS 2018 for admission in various Postgraduate
Course in Dental Sciences – The result of the NEET MDS 2018 was
published on 31.01.2018 – A merit list was prepared for the State of
Chhattisgarh – Admissions in the Postgraduate Course in Dental
Sciences were to be made through counselling by the State
Government – The admission process was required to be completed
on or before 31.05.2018 before 4:30 p.m. – As per the procedure,
after the first round of counselling, there was second round of
counselling and thereafter the mop up round of counselling – In
the instant case, the dispute was with respect to three Dental Colleges
– Directorate of Medical Education notified the vacant seats
including the vacant seats in the said three colleges on 29.05.2018
to be filled up in mop up round of counselling on the basis of
intimation provided by the private colleges including the said three
colleges – In the mop up round of counselling, the original writ
petitioners participated but could not secure admission on merits in
the respective colleges/institutions, in which, subsequently they got
admissions through backdoor – Nothing is on record that any other
students were given any opportunity to apply for admissions in the
respective institutions/colleges for admission on the seats remained
vacant – It is not appreciable how the original writ petitioners came
to know that at 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the seats have remained
vacant in the institutions/colleges – The only inference can be that
the institutions and the students were hands in glove and the students
got admissions illegally – Communication issued by the Directorate
annulling/cancelling the admission of the original writ petitioners
in the postgraduate course in the respective private institutions/
colleges is restored.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
  Allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. The respective original writ petitioners were
granted admissions by the private institutions/colleges in the
postgraduate course illegally. Their admissions can be said to be
backdoor. The admissions in the postgraduate course were
required to be made only through counselling by the Directorate
and the counselling was to be done with respect to number of
seats intimated by the concerned institutions/colleges. The
admissions in the concerned institutions/colleges were required
to be given/granted as per the merit only. As per the procedure
and regulations, if after the first counselling the seats remained
vacant, there shall be second round of counselling and then mop
up counselling to fill up the vacant seats intimated. Every time
the institutions/colleges were required to intimate the Directorate
the particulars about the vacant seats and those vacant seats were
required to be filled in on merits by the Directorate through
counselling. The last date and the time for granting admission
was 4:30 p.m. on 31.05.2018. In the present case, in the mop up
round of counselling, the original writ petitioners did participate
but could not secure admission on merits in the respective
colleges/institutions in which subsequently they got admissions
through backdoor. If the original writ petitioners were so much
meritorious, they would have got admissions in the respective
colleges/institutions on merits through mop up round conducted
by the Directorate. During the mop up round, they could not get
admissions in the respective private institutions/colleges, that
itself is suggestive that they were not having merit to get
admissions in the institutions/colleges in which subsequently they
got admissions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the private
institutions and even the students that they were meritorious
students and the merit is not given go bye cannot be accepted.
[Para 8][982-E-H; 983-A-B]
2. In the present case, though required, the private
institutions/colleges did not intimate to the Directorate/State
Government with respect to seats remained vacant. Without any
intimation to the Directorate/State Government, the private
institutions/colleges unilaterally granted admission to

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