Rajasthan HC Refuses To Regularize Admissions, Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation Each

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to regularize the admissions of 16 medical aspirants who were admitted to a Dental College in Kota, without qualifying the NEET examination. It however granted Rs.10 Lakhs compensation to each such student, stating that the College had made a “false promise” assuring them a seat in MDS course.

The court also directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials who had handed over degrees of the Petitioner-students, despite an order of the court to withhold the same.

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,

The fact remains that the petitioners were admitted in the Course in the year 2017 and their three years in the College is sheer wastage of energy, time and money spent on their education by their parents…This Court, though cannot regularize the admissions which were granted to the petitioners, however, the petitioners need to be compensated by the respondent-College for the illegality committed by them while giving admission to the petitioners and further furnishing incorrect and false information to different authorities i.e. respondent-University and respondent-DCI.”


The 16 petitioners were admitted in MDS Course in the respondent-College in May, 2017. As per Information booklet for NEET for admission to MDS Course, a candidate was to obtain a minimum qualifying score. However, petitioners did not secure the requisite cut-off marks in NEET PG Examination, 2017 and were granted admission by the College after the mop-up round was over. Moreover, all the petitioners were not found to be qualified as per the scorecards issued by National Board of Examinations.

The enrollment forms, filled in by the petitioners in the University, reflected the marks of the petitioners and the same were at variance/different, as per the record available with the NEET PG Admission Board. Later, the respondent-College uploaded the list of the students admitted in the MDS Course on the Dental Council of India’s web portal and was subsequently ordered to discharge 16 students, who were admitted illegally in the MDS Course in the year 2017. However, the respondent-College permitted the petitioners to undertake the course and did not challenge the said orders.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners pleaded that in spite of completing three year course of their study, the denial of the respondent-University to issue enrollment number and preventing the petitioners to participate in the examination was an arbitrary act and as such, the petitioners filed the writ petition praying for direction to allow them to fill online examination forms and to participate in MDS Final Year (Main) Examination to be held in June, 2020.

Notably, after the judgment was initially reserved on 19.04.2022, the respondent-University had sent the degrees of 16 students–petitioners of MDS Batch, 2017 to the respondent-College and the said degrees were distributed to the petitioners from 20.05.2022 to 30.05.2022.

Court’s Observations

The court noted that some of the petitioners did not even appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2017 and yet while filling up the enrollment form, they all have shown themselves to have appeared in the NEET PG Examination, 2017 and some of them also gave incorrect information relating to the marks obtained by them in the NEET PG Examination. By supplying incorrect information to the University authorities and by furnishing false information of having secured qualifying marks in the NEET examination, the petitioners cannot be allowed to plead that notice or opportunity was required to be given to them, added the court.

It was observed by the court that petitioners got admission by wrong means knowing fully well about their eligibility and as such they cannot be permitted to claim right in their favour of offering them opportunity of hearing before discharging them from the course, in which they got admission in an illegal manner.

Further, the court refused the petitioners’ submission that seats in medical courses should not go waste and admissions given to the candidates may be regularized. In this regard, the court opined that if the submission is accepted, then Colleges/admission bodies will be acting on their own to adjudge the eligibility of different persons for the professional courses and the candidates without having the requisite eligibility and merit will be able to get admission and then seal of approval will be sought from the Courts of law that such persons need to be regularized for the purpose of pursuing professional courses.

Reliance was placed by the court on Abdul Ahad & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., wherein Apex Court had laid down the law that if the admissions in the medical college are granted by conducting private counseling then such admissions are termed as per se illegal. The Apex Court had further held that when the admissions granted to the students through private counseling, are found to be per se illegal, then such admissions cannot be protected, as the said admissions were done in a patently illegal manner.

The court observed that admission of the petitioners by illegal means, cannot be retained. The court noted that the Apex Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J&K & Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 2638] had considered the issue of admission by illegal means and such wrongs were not allowed to be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court.

The court opined that University authorities who have issued the degrees to the respondent-College have acted in the most irresponsible, callous and illegal manner. The fact of restraint order, being passed by the Division Bench of the Court, was very much in the knowledge of the University authorities and in spite of having the knowledge of such restraint order, if they have handed over the degrees of the petitioners to the respondent-College, they need to be dealt with by this Court in strict manner, added the court

Furthermore, the court added that their explanation by terming such action to be a human error and further only by giving letter of calling upon explanation from two subordinate staff i.e. Section Officer and Senior Assistant, is no solution/answer to the blunder committed by the University authorities.

The court also observed,

“This Court is also required to see the conduct of the respondent-Dental College as in what manner, admissions were granted by them to the petitioners and further in spite of the discharge order passed by the DCI in the year 2018, yet the petitioners were allowed to continue with their studies by permitting them to complete three year MDS Course and apparently made them eligible for claiming relief of appearing in the examination on completion of three years.”

Sr Adv. Ravindra Shrivastava assisted by Adv. S.S. Hora, Adv. Arpit Sharma and Adv. Kartikey Kumar appeared for the petitioners while Adv. Ajay Shukla, Adv. Ravi Chirania, Adv. Harshal Tholia on behalf of AAG Dr.V.B.Sharma, Adv. Angad Mirdha and Adv. Abhinav Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Madhu Saini & Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 213


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.