SHAFALI NANDWANI versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 25-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHAFALI NANDWANI 
\I, 
STATE OF HARY ANA 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: Admission in Post Graduate Course 
in Medicine-Entrance test-Second counselling-Allotment of vacant seat 
C in the subject of choice-Eligibility clause in admission prospectus-
lnterpretation of-Held, allotment of seat in a particular subject to a candidate 
lower in rank to the one who vacated the seat is only afortuitous circumstance 
which would he in compliance with the rule/eligibility clause-A candidate 
·though senior in merit but accepted admission in another subject in second 
counselling-Claiming admission in the subject of his first choice-permitting 
D such admission in the subsequent academic session would amount to 
contravening the admission prospectus-It would also amount to increase in 
the permissible seats for the subsequent years and would be in contravention 
of Regulation JO(A) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate 
Medical Education, 1997. 
E 
Both the appellant and Respondent No.4 were declared successful in 
the Entrance Examination-2000 for admission to M.D. Co.urse. Appellant was 
senior to Respondent No. 4 in the merit list. However, in the first counselling 
both of them could not get admission in the subject of their choice, viz., M.D. 
(Medicine). As per eligibility clause of the admission prospectus, they 
F preferred to be wait-listed for the second counselling though they accepted 
allotment in different subjects. In the second counselling, Respondent No.4 
could not get admission in M.D. (Medicine) and accepted allotment of seat in 
M.D. (Anaethesiology). Thereafter, a candidate lower in rank to Respondent 
No.4 vacated the seat in M.D. (Medicine) which was offered to and accepted by 
the appellant. Respondent No.4 filed a Writ Petition challenging the admission 
G of the appellant. High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the admi~sion 
of the appellant. In appeal to this Court, by an interim order the operation of 
the decision of the High Court was stayed. 
H 
At the final hearing, it was contended for the appellant that the seat in 
M.D. (Medicine) was not available at the respondent's merit position and one 
548 
,., . 
,..,. 
SHAFALI NANDW ANI v. STATE 
549 
seat became available thereafter and was rightly offered to the next candidate, A 
the appellant, as per term of the admission clause, and respondent was not 
entitled for the same; and that after closure of admission process there should 
not be any shifting/granting of admission as this would result in unsettling 
admissions already finalised. 
On behalf of Respondent No.4, it was contended that he was entitled to B 
a seat In M.D. (Medicine) in preference to the appellant as he had ranked 
higher in the merit list. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Assuming that the construction of the clause in the C 
prospectus gave a right to Respondent No.4 to be offered a seat in M.D. 
(Medicine) which had fallen vacant on the second counselling, nevertheless 
the High Court erred in quashing the admission of the appellant and in 
directing Respondent No.4 to be admitted in the vacancy created thereby. The 
fact that the subject of choice of a person higher in merit list may go to a D 
candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list was only a fortuitous 
circumstance which would not negative the reasonableness of the rule which 
had provided that the vacant seat would be offered to the candidate next in 
merit list. (553-C, G) 
Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP. and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 355, E 
relied on. 
1.2. The clause in the prospectus makes it clear that there would be no 
change in the subject or re-admission into a different course once the last 
date of admission was over. To permit Respondent No.4 to take admission in F 
M.D. (Medicine) for the subsequent academic session would not only be a 
contravention of the prospectus but would also amount to an increase in the 
permissible seats for post graduate students in M.D. (Medicine) for the 
subsequent yea,r. This is impermissible under Regulation IO(A) of the Medical 
Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. 
(553-H; 554-A, Bl G 
Dr. lndu Kant etc. etc. v. State of UP. and Ors., (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 71; 
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors .. (1998) 6 SCC 131 
and Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors., (2002) 6 Scale 332, 
relied on. 
H 
550 
SUPREME C

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