Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 14 November 2024
- Bench
- Justice Sameer Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 21; General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 10; Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 (National Medical Commission)
Petitions allowed. The authorities must consider the petitioners strictly on their NEET-UG 2024 merit and allot medical colleges accordingly, without delay; the allotments of respondents 5 and 6 were cancelled. The judgment applies to all connected petitions; no costs (paras 16-17). Special appeals, including D.B. SAW/689/2024, have been filed.
Key holdings
- Insisting on a Class XI marksheet showing Biology was unjustified when the Class XII marksheet already showed it (para 14.2).
- Verification fixed during public holidays, in a three-hour window, gave candidates no reasonable time (paras 13.3, 14.1, 15).
- Certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were held to be in time under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (para 13.4).
- Following Asha, a cut-off cannot be a technical tool to deny admission to a blameless, diligent and meritorious candidate (para 14.4).
- The lower-ranked candidates’ allotments were cancelled and seats are to be allotted strictly by NEET merit (paras 16-17).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7440 of 2012]
Where no fault is attributable to a candidate who has pursued her remedies expeditiously, the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument to deny admission to a meritorious student; the rule of merit admits no exception.
- Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 654
Merit alone must be the criterion for admission to MBBS courses.
- Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779
Eligibility must exist by the date fixed, but there can be some relaxation in the submission of proof; every infraction of the rule on submitting proof need not result in rejection of candidature.
View all precedents (6)
- S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 17 SCC 465
In rare cases where the candidate is not at fault, has acted expeditiously and the authorities are at fault, the court may direct admission and may cancel the admission of the candidate at the bottom of the merit list after hearing that candidate. Cited by the respondents and relied on by the Court.
- Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. SLP (C) No. 11785/2024
Cited by the respondents; distinguished because it concerned the grant of a vacant seat and admission in a medical college, in the context of interim directions.
- Premsukh v. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18396/2024 (Rajasthan High Court)
Cited by the respondents; reliance on it was held misplaced because the petitioners there were only to be considered in subsequent counselling rounds, with no observation on the other issues (para 15 also takes note of its ratio).
