EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 21-06-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND
ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2019)
JUNE 21, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Extension of time for
carrying out counselling for P.G. courses – Petitioner no.1-Society
sought extension of time for carrying out counselling for medical
colleges/deemed Universities, since large number of seats in these
colleges for P.G. courses were lying vacant – Petitioner no.1 relied
on the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 11.10.2017 in
Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 1043 of 2017 in Interlocutory
Application (I.A.) No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No. 743 of 2017
wherein it was permitted to hold mop-up counselling for unfilled
super-speciality seats lying vacant – Held: Petitioners sought a
general extension of time not on account of any particular difficulty
faced by any individual college or university but generally on the
ground that a large number of seats for P.G. courses were lying
vacant – Merely because the seats were lying vacant, is not a ground
to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up
vacant seats – The fixed time schedule to fill up seats must be followed
– Insofar as order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned, it was related to
super-speciality seats and Supreme Court had extended the date
for counselling on the request of the Central Government – Further,
the said order was only applicable to the said academic year – In
the instant case, extension cannot be granted just because some
seats were lying vacant without any justification.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Except the orders in M.A. No.1043 of 2017 in
I.A.No. 96448 of 2017 in W.P. (C) No.743 of 2017, all the orders
are either state specific or college/university specific. They have
been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each
particular case and in most of the orders it is clearly mentioned
that the orders shall not be treated as precedent.  As far as the
order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned it related to super-speciality
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 794
794
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
seats and this Court on the request of the Central Government
extended the date for counselling by 10 days from the date of the
order and further granted 4 days for the candidates to join.  The
order also clearly states that it is only applicable to the said
academic year. [Para 5] [797-F-G]
2. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of
time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any
individual college or university but generally on the ground that
a large number of seats for the P.G. courses are lying vacant.  It
is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant.  In the
affidavit filed by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed
universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant.
However, it is important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant
only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is
almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in non-clinical subjects.
There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation
with regard to the remaining 400-500 seats.  This Court however
can take judicial notice of the fact that every year large number
of non-clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors
do not want to do post-graduation in non-clinical subjects. Merely
because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to
grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up
vacant seats.  The schedule must be followed.  If this Court will
permit violation of schedule and grant extension, it will lead to
opening a Pandora’s box and the whole purpose of fixing a time
schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time
schedule will be defeated. [Para 6] [798-A-D]
Mridul Dhar and Ors.  v.  Union of India (UOI) and
Ors  (2005) 2 SCC 65 : [2005] 1 SCR 380 ; Priya
Gupta v.  State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC
433 : [2012] 5 SCR 768 ; Ashish Ranjan and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 1 SCR 380
referred to
Para 3
[2012] 5 SCR 768
referred to
Para 3
(2016) 11 SCC 225
referred to
Para 3
EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA v. UNION
OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
747 of 2019.
(Under Article 32 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.