LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus SNEHA SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1.4 S.C.R. 77
.. ·)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
A
/
II.
SNEHA SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6026 of 2008)
OCTOBER 1, 2008
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
)
Education/Educational Institutions: Admissions to Medi-
cal Colleges in State of Maharashtra - Preference system in
distribution of seats - Held: More meritorious candidates en- c
~
titled to exercise the preference first depending on creation of
vacancy in particular college - On facts, respondent no. 1
ranked lower than respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the merit posi-
tion - Consequently, respondent no. 1 not entitled to exercise
preference prior to respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Information Bro-
D
chure of Preference System for admission to Health Science
"'
Courses of MHT-CET, 2006 - Rules 1 and 2.
Respondent no.1 was allotted admission in GMC,
Yavatmal. She filed representation before the Director,
Medical Education and Research (OMER) contending that E
the admissions of Respondent nos.2 and 3 in IGMC,
Nagpur were in violation of the Rules thereby depriving
respondent no.1 to exercise her higher preference for
admission in IGMC, Nagpur. The Authorities did not take
.,
any action on her representation. Respondent no.1 filed
F
a writ petition. High Court disposed of the writ petition by
pronouncing only operative part of the judgment, thereby
directing OMER to consider shifting of respondent no.2
from IGMC , Nagpur to GMC, Yavatmal and shifting of re-
spondent no.1 from GMC, Yavatmal to IGMC, Nagpur. Later G
on, full judgment was delivered. In the meantime, the en-
-{
tire admission process was over.
The instant appeals were filed by the State Govern-
ment and respondent No.1. The State Government chal-
77
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A lenged the directions of the High Court to the OMER to
/- -
consider respondent no.1 for giving seat in IGMC, Nagpur
by shifting respondent No.2 to GMC, Yavatmal. The stand
(Jil
on behalf of respondent No.1 was that no directions were
issued to correct the error committed by authorities.
B
Allowing the State's appeal and dismissing the ap-
J
peal by respondent no.1, the Court
\-
HELD: 1.1. Rule 1 of Information Brochure of Prefer-
ence System for admission to Health Science Courses of
c MHT-CET, 2006 prescribes for distribution of seats. In
1:
accordance with the rules, 30% of the seats available to
be filled from State Merit List and remaining 70% to be
filled, from Regional quota. The mandates of Rules 1.4.2,
2.2.2 and 2.2.3 clarify that allotment of seat is required to
D
be done strictly on the basis of merit and preferences sub-
mitted by the candidates in their respective forms. Rule
2.2.3 also requires the competent authority to follow the
~--
said procedure of allotment of seats not only in the first
round of admission but also in each round of admission,
in such circumstances firstly merit of the candidates is to
E
be considered and then, preferences exercised by him or
her while allotting seat to such candidate in the concerned
college. In the case on hand, in IGMC, Nagpur twelve seats
were available for allocation in 30% State quota and 70%
}--
Regional quota in the second round of admission. Out of
'
these twelve seats, four seats were reserved for 30% State
I
F
Q.uota Which are to be filled on the basis of State Merit
List and rest on the basis of 70% Regional quota and that
too on the basis of merit out of four seats meant for 30%
State Quota and in IGMC, Nagpur two seats fell vacant
i
G and accordingly these seats required to be filled by the
Competent Authority on the basis of State Merit List. The
"
Competent Authority strictly followed the rules relating to
...
;.
admission. [Para 10] [92-C-H, 93-A,D]
1.2. The more meritorious candidates were entitled
H to exercise the preference first depending on the creation
1
f
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. SNEHA
79
SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL & ORS.
of vacancy in particular college after first round. In addi-
A
tion, the Competent Authority had to ensure that the quota
system of 30% and 70% was maintained. Respondent
No.1 was given merit position 963 in the State Merit List
and respondent No.2 was at 869 in the State Merit List.
Therefore, respondent No.1 was much below in the merit 8
position from respondent No.2 and also from the other
candidates. Respondent No.3 stood at position No. 844
in the State Merit List. Therefore, respondent NoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.