Summary
In the mop-up round of MBBS counselling for 2021–22, Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College filled its vacant Himachal Pradesh state-quota general seats by automatically upgrading three of its own management-quota students under clause 4 of the prospectus. The first respondent, who had higher NEET marks and had applied in the mop-up round, was left out. The High Court held that clause 3 required mop-up seats to go by merit and choice, and that clause 4 applied only to seats left vacant after the mop-up round. It directed a fresh merit list and her admission. The Supreme Court upheld that reading but set aside the admission direction. Admissions had closed, the session was well under way, and admitting her would exceed the sanctioned intake of 150 and oust an unheard student. The college was instead ordered to pay her Rs. 10 lakh in compensation within a month.
Issues
- Whether, in the mop-up round, management-quota students could be upgraded to vacant state-quota seats under clause 4 of the prospectus ahead of a more meritorious applicant under clause 3
- What relief can be granted to a meritorious candidate wrongly denied MBBS admission once admissions for the session have closed
Held
- Merit must be the primary consideration in medical admissions and cannot be defeated by improper methods. Clause 3 of the prospectus governs mop-up seats in order of merit-cum-choice, while clause 4, providing automatic conversion of management-quota students against 'vacant/drop-out seats', applies only after the mop-up round is complete. The first respondent, ranked above the three upgraded students, was entitled to admission under clause 3. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Following S. Krishna Sradha and Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, courts cannot direct seats beyond the intake sanctioned by the NMC. Although the first respondent moved the High Court without delay, admissions had closed, the session had progressed, and her admission would raise the intake to 151 and require the ouster of a non-party student. Admission in the current year therefore could not be directed. Reserving a seat for her in 2022–23 was also refused, as those seats must be filled competitively. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- A meritorious candidate deprived of admission by an erroneous interpretation cannot be left without a remedy. Compensation, though only partial restitution for the loss of a year, was quantified at Rs. 10 lakh payable by the college. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The High Court's interpretation of clauses 3 and 4 was affirmed, but its direction to redraw the merit list and admit the first respondent was replaced with a direction to the appellants to pay her Rs. 10 lakh within one month.