MS. NEELU ARORA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 24-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

!· 
A 
MS. NEELU ARORA AND ANR. 
v. 
~ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
~ 
JANUARY 24, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. 
VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
-+ 
Education: 
c 
MBBSIBDS Courses-Admission ta--Under 15% All-India quota-
Scheme framed in Shrawan Kumar's case providing for two rounds of 
counselling-Modification of Scheme sought in order to provide third round 
of counselling -Held, Scheme framed by C-urt not to be read as a Statute-
x 
No inexorable rights conferred upon parties-Scheme has been framed to 
D achieve a broad based equality-There is no scope for a third round of 
~ounselling under the scheme. 
In Shrawan Kumar's case*, the Supreme Court framed a scheme for 
admission to MBBS/BDS Courses under 15% All-India quota in various 
Colleges in the country. The Scheme provided for the last date of receipt 
~ 
E of the vacancy position as September of each year and two rounds of 
counselling to be taken during the period prescribed therein. As per clause 
14 of the scheme, If the Dean of the principal of any college does not notify 
the vacancy position due to non-joining of candidates in the first round 
of counselling before the date indicated therein, the seats alloted to such 
college will be treated as vacant and allotment of candidates will be made 
F against these deemed vacant seats and it shall be the responsibility of the 
Dean or the Principal of the College concerned to give adrr.ission the those 
-1--
students. 
Some of the candidates filed the writ petition and some others filed 
an. interlocutory application in another writ petition seeking modification 
G of the Scheme. It was stated that the candidates who were allotted seats 
I 
under the All-India quota may not have been given the course or college 
pi
or place of their choice and in case later when they get allotment of their 
jjl!
choice under the State quota, they will ·vaca~e the seats allotted to them 
-~ 
under tlie All-India quota and in the process some more seats would fall 
H vacant under the All-India quota. It was, therefore, submitted that a third 
562 
NEELU ARORA v. \1.0.1. 
563 
round of counselling may be permitted to be held for such vacant seats A 
--;-· 
and the vacancies under 15% All-India quota should not be allowed to 
revert back to States. It was also stated that some of the States/Colleges 
did not intimate the vacancy position. 
Dismissing the writ petition and the interlocutory application, the 
Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders 
of the Court prescribing also the manner in which it has to be. worked 
out, if in a particular year there is any short fall or certain number of 
seats are not filled up, the same can not be done by adopting one more C 
round of counselling because there is no scope for a third round of 
counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering 
the scheme as and when seats are found vacant. What is to be borne in 
mind is that broad equality is to be achieved and not that it should result 
in any mathematical exactitude. (566-C, DJ 
*Sharwan Kumar, etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services & 
Anr. etc. etc., (1993) 3 SCC 332, explained. 
D 
1.2. The primary consideration in formulating the Scheme for 
creating a reservation in favour of candidates is broadly based on national 
approach as against the State based reservation. The Schemes framed E 
by the Court should not be read as if they are Statues or that inexorable 
rights are conferred upon the parties. Moreover, there is no scope for 
admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of 
statutes governing medical education. Even if some seats are unfilled that 
cannot be a ground for making mid-session admission and there cannot F 
be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the 
subsequent year. (565-B, C; 566-F, GI 
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. 
(1984( 3 SCC 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors . . v. Motilal Nehru Medical 
College & Ors., (19861 3 SCC 727 and Medical Council of India v. Madhu G 
Singh & Ors., (20021 7 SCC 258, relied on. 
-" 
Sharwan Kumar etc. etc. v. Director Generafof Health Services & Anr. 
etc. etc., (19931 3 sec 332, reiterated. 
CIVIL APPEq.A TE JURISDICTION 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) I S.C.R. 
A 40712001. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) . 
WITH 
B 
I.A. No. 14 in W.P. No 443/92 
P.P. Malhotra, P.H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.