- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Under a Government Order dated 30-3-1994, rules were framed for admission to postgraduate medical courses in Uttar Pradesh. The rules made the initial allotment of a speciality and college, based on a candidate’s option at the first counselling, final; a candidate who did not exercise an option was placed on a waiting list and could receive a seat only if a vacancy arose later. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of these provisions.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that, before any subsequent counselling, public notice must be issued and the first day of such counselling reserved for candidates already allotted seats who wished to change them; vacant seats created after the first counselling could then be re-allotted to those candidates according to merit.
The Director General of Medical Education and Training appealed. A Division Bench reversed the Single Judge, relying on the scheme of admission and on decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Division Bench held that seats inadvertently left out of earlier counsellings, or becoming vacant later, should be offered only to wait-listed candidates, because reopening counselling for all would start an endless “chain reaction” and disrupt the academic calendar.
The aggrieved students (and other connected petitioners) sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the rule that a candidate’s choice of subject and college at the first counselling is final, thereby excluding already-allotted candidates from subsequent counsellings, is reasonable and valid.
- How seats that fall vacant after the first counselling (or were mistakenly omitted from it) should be filled—by reopening counselling to all candidates or by allotting them only to wait-listed candidates.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- If a highly ranked candidate later relinquishes a desirable seat (e.g., in Surgery or Medicine), the vacancy may be filled by a much lower-ranked candidate, which is unfair to other meritorious students.
Respondents' Arguments
- Allowing candidates who already have seats to participate in later counsellings would trigger an endless cycle of reallocations, disrupting the counselling process and jeopardising completion of the three-year course.
- Offering vacated seats only to wait-listed candidates is the only practical alternative to leaving such seats unfilled.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Veena Gupta v. University of Delhi, AIR 1994 Del 108; (1994) 2 SLR 68 (FB) | Counselling should not be reopened for candidates already allotted seats because it would unsettle completed admissions. | Relied upon to uphold the view that re-opening counselling for allotted candidates would lead to an endless process and should be avoided. |
| Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations, (1998) 3 ESC 2016 (P&H) | Vacancies arising after initial counselling should be filled from the waiting list rather than by reshuffling earlier allotments. | Cited with approval to affirm that seats vacated post-counselling must be given to wait-listed candidates. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court endorsed the Division Bench’s rationale, observing that allowing candidates who had already exercised their option to participate in subsequent counsellings would create an “endless” process of re-allocation. This, in turn, could prevent students from completing the postgraduate programme within the prescribed three-year period. The Court considered the concern—that a coveted seat might ultimately be filled by a lower-ranked candidate—merely a “fortuitous” circumstance dependent on multiple contingencies and insufficient to invalidate the rule. Concluding that the rule served administrative efficiency and academic certainty, the Court found it reasonable and rational.
Holding and Implications
Appeals and special leave petitions dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench’s decision, thereby validating the rule that once a candidate is allotted a speciality and college at the first counselling, the allotment is final. Seats that fall vacant later are to be filled only from the waiting list. The ruling settles the immediate dispute but does not create a new legal precedent; it primarily reinforces existing principles governing medical admissions and counselling schedules.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.—
CAs Nos. 2649-51 of 2000
1. In relation to admission to postgraduate medical courses, Rules were framed under the government order issued on 30-3-1994; it was provided therein that the allotment of subject (speciality) and college of study made on the basis of option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be permitted to change the subject or the college. A candidate who does not exercise his option at the time of counselling will be kept in the waiting list and if at any subsequent stage a seat falls vacant the same shall be allotted on the basis of the option exercised by those who are in the waiting list. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of these Rules.
2. A learned Single Judge of the High Court interpreting the Rules directed that when after the first counselling, any subsequent counselling is decided to be held for allocation of remaining seats including those which have fallen vacant subsequent to the first counselling, the same shall be notified to the public and the first date of each subsequent counselling will be reserved for the candidates who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who wish to change their seats and out of the candidates who were allotted seats at the first counselling, who turn up for subsequent counselling on the first date which is served for such students, distribution of seats which have fallen vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be done according to merit. The change of seat to these students who have been allotted seats during the first and earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of seats which have fallen vacant after the first counselling and not of the leftover seats.
3. Aggrieved by these directions, an appeal was preferred by the Director General of Medical Education and Training. The Division Bench, after considering the scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein and the decisions of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Veena Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi AIR 1994 Del 108, (1994) 2 SLR 68 (FB) and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations (1998) 3 ESC 2016 (P&H) held that any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the three counsellings by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit from amongst the wait-listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is available, the same should be included in the initial counselling. If by mistake a seat is not included in the initial counselling then the effect is that nobody opts for the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all the candidates for counselling, the result would be that all the candidates who took part in the first counselling should be given a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there will be one seat more, which would become available for the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will start leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling for all candidates would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair, there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the said seat to the wait-listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a period of three years and if the counselling goes on continuously for a long period then it may not be possible to fulfil that condition and thereby upset the course of study itself. On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against this order and connected matters that the present appeals are filed by special leave.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High Court and before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and the Delhi High Court in Dr Veena Gupta case AIR 1994 Del 108, (1994) 2 SLR 68 (FB) and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain case (1998) 3 ESC 2016 (P&H) is in accordance with reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period.
5. The grievance made is that if a choice subject like Surgery and Medicine is given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a seat in Medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of the Rule.
6. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no merit in the appeals and the same stand dismissed. No costs.
CA No. 4752 of 2000 and SLP (C) No. 5151 of 2000
7. For the reasons given in CAs Nos. 2649-51 of 2000, this appeal and SLP also are dismissed. No costs.
Alert