PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 14-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1065 
PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9717 of 2011) 
A 
NOVEMBER 14, 2011 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND 
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in the 
Post-Graduate or Diploma Courses in medicine - Conditions 
C 
relating to admission as indicated in the prospectus -
Modification in the conditions by the State Government after 
declaration of result and preparation of select list - Power of 
- Held: If such Government Orders were already in force when 
the prospectus was published, they would certainly have a 
D 
bearing on the admission process - However, once the 
results had been declared and a select list had been 
prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the 
terms and conditions just a day before counselling was to 
begin, so as to deny the candidates, who had already been 
E 
selected, an opportunity of admission in the aforesaid 
courses - Benefits of admission in the reserved category is 
the result of the policy adopted by the State Government to 
provide for candidates from the reserved category -
Appellants having been selected on the basis of merit, in 
F 
keeping with the results of the written examination, the 
submission that such admissions in the reserved category will 
have to be made keeping in mind the necessity of upholding 
the standard of education in the institution, cannot be 
accepted. 
G 
Appellants-members of the State Civil Medical 
Services, are candidates for admission to the Post-
Graduate Courses conducted by respondent No.2 
1065 
H 
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R. 
A University against the Haryana Civil Medical Services 
(HCMS) reserved quota As per the prospectus, a 
common entrance examination was held for candidates 
who applied for admissions against seats reserved for the 
HCMS quota as also seats under open merit category, the 
B results were declared and counselling was held. Clauses 
5 and 6 of the prospectus provided that HCMS doctors 
who wanted to join the PG-courses against the HCMS 
reserved quota, required NOC in terms of Government of 
Haryana instructions dated 5th December, 2008; and 
c three years regular service with successful completion of 
probation period. On the basis thereof, the appellants 
were allowed to participate in the selection process, their 
names were published in the merit list dated 3rd March, 
2011 and were admitted. However, on 31st March, 2011, 
0 the Government of Haryana issued an instruction that 
changed the eligibility conditions whereby three years 
regular service was changed to five years and applied the 
same to the process of admission which had already 
been set in motion on the basis of the previous 
Government instructions, and that too just one day 
E before the date of counseling. Aggrieved, the appellants 
filed a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court 
passed an interim order to the effect that in the meantime 
the appellants would be permitted to take part in the 
counselling as against the HCMS quota candidates, 
F subject to their own risk and responsibility; and that the 
said order would not confer any equitable right in favour 
of the appellants. The Division Bench upheld the order 
of the Single Judge of the High Court. 
G 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals is whether the State Government had any 
jurisdiction and/or authority to alter the conditions 
relating to admission in the Post-Graduate or Diploma 
Courses in the different disciplines in medicine which had 
H earlier been indicated in the prospectus, once the 
PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF 
1067 
HARYANA & ORS. 
examination for such admission had been conducted and 
A 
the results had been declared and a select list had also 
been prepared on the basis there.of. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants contended that once the 
process of selection of candidates for admission to the 
Post-Graduate and Diploma Courses had been 
commenced on the basis of the prospectus, no change 
could, thereafter, be effected by Government Orders to 
alter the provisions contained in the prospectus. If such 
C 
Government Orders were already in force when the 
prospectus was published, they would certainly have a 
bearing on the admission process, but once the results 
had been declared and a select list had been prepared, 
it was not open to the State Government to

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