DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 11-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 320 
DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7940 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
EDUCATION: 
c 
Medical admissions -
Admission to PG Medical 
Courses - Weightage to in service candidates - Clarificatory 
order by High Court in review petition, without disturbing the 
already allocated seats - Held: On facts, since the order does 
not deprive the appellants in getting admission into their 
0 
preferred colleges or subjects, and they have already been 
admitted into various colleges and counseling is also over, 
it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the 
admissions of appellants or contesting respondents - Legal 
questions left open. 
E 
/mpleadment: 
F 
Medical admissions - Application for impleadment -
Significance of time limit - Explained - Delay!Laches. 
In the matter of quota of general category and in-
service candidates for admission to PG Medical courses, 
the instant appeal was filed against the clarificatory order 
of the High Court to the effect that already allocated seats 
in the general category are not to be disturbed but 
whatever further seats remain vacant and/or are spill over 
G from 60% quota, the RMOs would also compete, with the 
only difference that there would be weightage given to 
them as per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of India 
Regulations. 
H 
320 
DR. KULMEET KAUR MAHAL & ORS. v. STATE OF 321 
PUNJAB 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.0n facts, leaving the legal questions open, 
the order passed by the High Court in the review 
application does not deprive the appellants of their right 
A 
to get admission into their preferred colleges or favourite 8 
subjects, and since the appellants and the RMOs have 
already been admitted to the various colleges and the 
counseling is also over, it would not be in the interest of 
justice to disturb the admission of the appellants or the 
contesting respondents. [para 6) [324-B-D] 
c 
2. In academic matters, the time limit has to be strictly 
viewed. In the instant case, the applicants should have 
approached the Court at the earliest opportunity. In the 
circumstances, there is no reason to entertain the 
impleadment application, which was filed belatedly. [para D 
7) [324-D-E] 
Satyaprata sahoo & ors . . vs. State of orissa & ors. 2012 
(10) SCR 204 = 2012 (8) sec 203 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2012 (10) SCR 204 
relied on 
para 4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7940 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2013 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RA No. 
89 of 2013 in LPA No. 1070 of 2013 in CWP No. 11206 of 
2013. 
E 
F 
G 
Shyam Divan, Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati for the 
Appellants. 
P.S. Patwalia, Deepak Sibal, V. Shyamohan, Rayjith Mark, 
Uttara Babbar, Jagajit Singh Chhabra, Ashutosh K. Singh, 
H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Sanjay Bansal, Reepak Kansai, G.K. Bansal, Arvind Kr. 
B 
Sharma, Saurabh Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the 
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Review Application No.89 of 
2013 in LPA No.1070 of2013, by which the Division Bench of 
the High Court clarified its earlier order dated 25. 7.2013 stating 
C 
as follows :-
D 
"We thus clarify that there has not to be disturbance of the 
already allocated seats in the general category but 
whatever further seats remain vacant and/or are spill over 
from 60% quota, the RMOs will also compete with the only 
difference that there would be weightage given to them as 
per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of India Regulations." 
3. Appellants, who are nine in number and not made 
parties to the Review Petition, have questioned the order of the 
E 
High Court on the following questions of law :-
F 
G 
H 
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble High 
Court is sustainable in the teeth of law laid down by this 
Hon'ble Court in CA No.5705-5706 of 2012 Satyabrata 
Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. vide judgment 
dated 03.08.2012 since, in the said case this Hon'ble 
Court was pleased to quash the clause of prospectus (to 
the extent that it provided for weightage to in-service 
• 
candidates inspite of there being a reservation of seats 
for them to the extent of 50%) and held it to be ultra vires? 
II. Whether the Hon'ble High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.