LexNEERAJ KUMAR SAINY AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 881 NEERAJ KUMAR SAINY AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11974 of 2016) MARCH 21, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Education - Medical stream - Post Graduate Courses - Admission - Appellants cleared State Medical Entrance Examination A B but did not make it to first round of counselling - Writ petition by C appellants contending that in terms of the Information Brochure there ought to be minimum three rounds of counselling and then a mop-up round of counselling also ought to be held if sufficient number of seats were left unallotted, and since the same were not conducted, number of seats were lying vacant leading to waste of government resources - Writ petition dismissed - Held: In the instant D case, admission to post graduate courses for the academic session 2016-17 in the State of U.P stood concluded as per the decision by Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16.08.2016 - However, the appellants approached High Court only on 01.09.2016 - They did not choose to move Supreme Court when the said case was pending despite being aware that such a litigation was pending - It was only after certain orders were passed by Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan's case, that the appellants got the wake up call to agitate their grievance - Law does not assist the non-vigilant - It is well settled that no one should suffer any prejudice because of the act of the Court- Howeve1; the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' cannot operate in vacuum and has to get sustenance from the facts - Said maxim is not applicable in the facts of the present case - impugned judgment not interfered with - Maxims - 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit'. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E F G HELD: 1.1 Admission to post graduate courses for the academic session 2016-2017 in the State of Uttar Pradesh stood concluded by this Court as per the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, as finally decided on 16.8.16. However, the appellants in the instant case approached the High H 881 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R. A Court only on 01.09.2016. They did not choose to move this Court when the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan was pending. They were aware that such a litigation was pending before this Court. Despite the same, they chose to maintain a sphinx like silence. Had the grievance been raised before this Court at the time when B the special leave petitions were filed in respect of the seats lying vacant, the matter could possibly have been differently perceived. [Paras 10, 22) [888-A; 895-C-E) 1.2 It is manifest that effective and complete counselling was held in the case of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the verdict rendered by this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan and the C appellants, after certain orders were passed by this Court, felt to have got the wake up call to agitate their grievance. [Para 23] [895-G) 1.3 It is well settled in law that no one should suffer any prejudice because of the act of the court. The legal maxim that D has been taken recourse to cannot operate in a vacuum .. It has to get the sustenance from the facts. As is manifest, after the admissions were over as per the direction of this Court, the appellants, who seemed to have resigned to their fate, woke up to have control over the events forgetting that the law does not E assist the non-vigilant. One cannot indulge in luxury of lethargy, possibly nurturing the feeling that forgetting is a virtue, and thereafter, when the time has slipped through, for it waits for none, wake up and take shelter under the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit". It is completely unacceptable. [Para 311 [899- E-G] F G H Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and others AIR 1966 SC 1631: [1964] SCR 145; Jagannath Singh and others v. Dr. Ram Naresh Singh (1970) 1 SCC 573; Atma Ram Mittal v. lshwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284 : [1988) 2 Suppl. SCR 528; Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho (2001) 4 SCC 181 : [2001) 2 SCR 207; Assam Tea Corpn. Ltd. v. Narayan Singh AIR 1981 Gau 41; L. Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer AIR 1962 SC 633 : [1962) Suppl. SCR 206; Bhikhi Lal v. Tribeni AIR 1965 SC 1935; Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v .. State of Orissa and another AIR 1966 SC NEERAJ KUMAR SAINY AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 1047 : (19661 SCR 99; Dwaraka Das v. State of MP and another (1999) 3 SCC 500 : [1999) 1 SCR 524; Thirugnanavalli Ammal v. P Ven
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.