Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Per contra, T. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent No. 3 [National Medical Commission - hereinafter "NMC"], submits that MBBS admission is merit based, on the basis of marks obtained in NEET. Petitioner is disentitled to be considered for admission since he did not obtain qualifying marks in the category applied - Gen-PwD. To support his submissions, he drew attention of this Court to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (issued by the erstwhile Indian Medical Council of India), as amended on 22nd January, 2018 by Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2017 [hereinafter "2017 Amendment to GME Regulations"] and particularly, sub-clause (3) to Clause 4 [Admission to Medical Courses - Eligibility Criteria] and Clause 5 [Procedure for selection to MBBS course]. He submits that Petitioner was aware that he had failed to qualify NEET (UG)-2021 as he did not score the cut-off percentile and score, yet he secured an admission by concealing this fact. Mr. Singhdev submits that apart from the above, there is another ineligibility relating to Disability Certificate (for availing PwD Reservation). He explains that the 2022/DHC/000454.

11. Undoubtedly, at times courts have taken sympathetic view and allowed ineligible candidates to continue, nonetheless, each case has to be decided on its own merit. The judgments relied by Petitioner are inapplicable to the facts of case. There are several judgments cited by Mr. Singhdev on this issue, which are contrary to the proposition advanced by Petitioner's counsel. It is thus considered appropriate to briefly deal only with few judgments relied upon by Petitioner. In Abha George (supra), Petitioners acquired eligibility subsequent to cut-off date, which aspect prevailed upon the court to take a lenient view. That case is therefore, entirely distinguishable on facts. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with the question of cancellation of admissions of Appellants in engineering colleges in Karnataka University. While coming to the conclusion that candidates were ineligible for admission, the Court found it plausible that Appellants/ students before them had no knowledge regarding the status/ recognition of equivalence of Higher Secondary Examination conducted by Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and first year B.Sc. examination of Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities vis-à-vis Pre-University Examinations of Pre-University Examination Board, Bangalore. Thus, this judgment is entirely distinguishable on facts and is inapplicable. The case of A. Sudha (supra) concerns interpretation of regulations framed by Mysore University by the principal of Respondent-Institute in a letter addressed to the Appellant whereby, she informed the Appellant that she was eligible for admission in the MBBS course. On the basis of the said letter, Appellant joined the institute, however, after about seven months, her admission stood cancelled due to want of minimum qualifying marks. The Apex Court found fault on part of the principal of Respondent-Institute and noted that the regulations in question, to some extent, suffered from ambiguity and in this light, Petitioner was permitted to prosecute her studies at Respondent-Institute. This decision as well is entirely distinguishable on facts.