Summary
The Supreme Court restored ten students’ MBBS admissions on the particular record. They had qualified NEET, unsuccessfully attempted online registration and obtained fee demand drafts before the application deadline. The college extended an opportunity already afforded to similarly situated complainants, and no displaced higher-ranked applicant was identified. Considering those safeguards, vacant seats, university registration and elapsed study, the Court set aside the supervisory committee’s disapproval and the High Court judgment.
Issues
- Whether the appellants’ admissions should fail for absence from the original online application list.
- Whether the college’s extension of the remedial opportunity was mala fide.
- Whether the case was governed by the precedent concerning admission without NEET.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(6) and (7), Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2006 (regulation of admissions and fees)The quoted subsections empowered the ASC to supervise fair, transparent and merit-based admissions and address violations. Its remedial order and the college’s response formed the context for reviewing these admissions. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23)
Held
- Online application by the prescribed deadline was the required procedure, and the appellants had not completed it. Their later inclusion followed the college’s notice requiring proof of unsuccessful registration attempts and fee drafts obtained before that deadline, extending relief similar to that given to seven complainants. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21, 23)
- The prior-draft safeguard excluded applicants who had not contemplated admission before the deadline. On the record the Court found no mala fide or oblique motive in extending the same opportunity to similarly situated students. (¶¶ 21, 23, 26)
- All appellants had qualified NEET, no higher-ranked applicant who had applied and been denied a seat was identified, and seats remained vacant for subsequent government allotment. These circumstances supported the merits of the particular admissions; the decision did not dispense generally with application deadlines or NEET. (¶¶ 22, 23, 26)
- Rishabh Choudhary concerned admission through a college examination instead of NEET. Its facts differed from these NEET-qualified appellants and did not determine their challenge. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The Court also considered university registration, delayed disapproval and the students’ permitted first-year examinations. In the combined circumstances it declined to remove them from the college and set aside the impugned orders. (¶¶ 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and ASC disapproval set aside, preserving the ten appellants’ admissions.