Supreet Batra And Others v. Union Of India And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitions arise out of a scheme originally framed by the Supreme Court in Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services (1993) 3 SCC 332, which governs the 15 per cent all-India quota for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. The scheme fixes 7 August as the last date for colleges to intimate vacancy positions and provides for only two rounds of counselling—the second round occurring between 16-18 August each year.

For the academic year 2002-03, 1,634 seats (1,484 MBBS and 150 BDS) were available under the quota and were fully allotted after the first round of counselling. The petitioners complained that, because several States conducted their own Pre-Medical Tests (PMTs) or counselling late, many candidates would subsequently vacate their all-India seats, leaving an estimated 700 seats unfilled. They therefore sought a judicial direction for a third round of counselling and an order preventing unfilled all-India seats from reverting to the States after 7 August 2002.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Several States either postponed their PMTs or had not yet conducted counselling, meaning candidates might later vacate all-India seats in favour of State-quota seats of their choice, causing approximately 700 vacancies.

To avoid wastage of meritorious all-India seats, a third round of counselling should be held, and vacant seats should not revert to the States after 7 August.

The failure to hold a third round would frustrate the purpose of the Supreme Court’s scheme, which aims at national-level equal opportunity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services (1993) 3 SCC 332	Established the scheme and timelines for all-India quota admissions.	Treated as the governing framework; Court declined to modify it to insert a third counselling round.
Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654	Recognised limited reservation consistent with equality and social justice; favoured a national rather than State-centric approach.	Cited to emphasise that the scheme seeks “broad-based equality,” not mathematical exactitude in every year.
Dinesh Kumar (Dr) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986) 3 SCC 727	Reiterated principles from Pradeep Jain concerning national allocation.	Used to underscore that the current quota scheme already balances equality considerations.
Neelu Arora v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 366	Earlier decision refusing to allow a third counselling round.	Relied on as precedent for maintaining only two rounds despite vacancies.
Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258	Held that mid-session admissions are impermissible and unfilled seats cannot be telescoped into subsequent years.	Cited to reject the request for filling seats through an additional counselling round after the academic session had begun.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services (1993) 3 SCC 332

Established the scheme and timelines for all-India quota admissions.

Treated as the governing framework; Court declined to modify it to insert a third counselling round.

Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654

Recognised limited reservation consistent with equality and social justice; favoured a national rather than State-centric approach.

Cited to emphasise that the scheme seeks “broad-based equality,” not mathematical exactitude in every year.

Dinesh Kumar (Dr) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986) 3 SCC 727

Reiterated principles from Pradeep Jain concerning national allocation.

Used to underscore that the current quota scheme already balances equality considerations.

Neelu Arora v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 366

Earlier decision refusing to allow a third counselling round.

Relied on as precedent for maintaining only two rounds despite vacancies.

Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258

Held that mid-session admissions are impermissible and unfilled seats cannot be telescoped into subsequent years.

Cited to reject the request for filling seats through an additional counselling round after the academic session had begun.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that clause 14 of the scheme already provides a mechanism whereby any seat left vacant after the first round is treated as vacant for the second round. However, the scheme contains no provision for a third round. Introducing further rounds whenever vacancies arise would render the process “endless,” defeating the schedule intended to ensure that courses commence on time.

The Court emphasised that the object of the scheme is to achieve “broad-based equality,” not perfect allocation down to the last seat each year. Out of approximately 1,600 seats, even if about 200 remain unfilled, the overall objective remains satisfied.

Previous decisions—particularly Neelu Arora and Madhu Singh—were invoked to reaffirm that mid-session or third-round admissions are contrary to the spirit of medical-education regulations and the Court-framed scheme. The Court therefore declined to modify the scheme or direct a third counselling.

Holding and Implications

Petitions Dismissed.

The interim order preventing reversion of unfilled all-India seats to the States stands dissolved. Consequently, those seats may now revert, and admissions can proceed under existing State mechanisms. The Court also clarified that the validity of the Kerala rank list is extended until the State authorities take appropriate steps. No new legal precedent was set; rather, the Court reaffirmed earlier rulings preserving the integrity and finality of the two-round counselling scheme.

Supreet Batra And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Rajendra Babu, J.— These petitions are an offshoot of a scheme framed by this Court in Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services (1993) 3 SCC 332 prescribing the procedure to complete the process of allotment of 15 per cent of all-India quota for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in various colleges in the country by September (now changed to 7th August) each year. The said Scheme was modified pursuant to an order made in IA No. 10 of 2000 in WP (C) No. 443 of 1992 and the date fixed, as stood altered, as indicated therein and the last date for receipt of vacancy position is fixed as 7th August of each year and the second round of counselling is proposed to be taken between the period from 16th August to 18th August of each year.

2. Now in these petitions, it is contended that selection or counselling has not been done in some States and therefore, they would not take full advantage of the second round of counselling. The details are set forth as under:

(a) The date of PMT in Punjab has been altered from 23-6-2002 to 21-7-2002.

(b) The States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh have only conducted their PMT on 30-6-2002.

(c) In the State of Karnataka, the counselling sessions for the Karnataka quota will commence on the 31st of August and the counselling sessions for the non-Karnataka quota will commence on 11-9-2002.

(d) In the State of Rajasthan, the results of PMT were declared on 26-6-2002. However, no counselling schedule has been declared so far.

(e) In the State of Bihar, the date of PMT had been shifted from 9-6-2002 to 11-7-2002.

(f) In the State of Jharkhand, the date of the pre-entrance test for screening has been fixed at 7-7-2002 and no date has been fixed for the main entrance test i.e PMT.

(g) In the State of West Bengal, no date has been announced vis-à-vis the counselling sessions.

(h) In the State of New Delhi, DPMT was conducted on 18-5-2002 and the date of the counselling is scheduled to be held on 16-7-2002 and 17-7-2002.

(i) In the States of Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, they have not conducted PMT yet.

(j) Vis-à-vis All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, the test was conducted on 1-6-2002 and the counselling is scheduled to be held on 29-7-2002.

3. It is submitted that the candidates from these States who have been allotted seats in the first round of allotment may not have been given the course or college or place of their choice and in case later on they get the allotment of their choice under the State quota, then they will vacate the seat allotted to them under the all-India quota. Hence they apprehend that more than 700 seats will fall vacant once the counselling is conducted in the aforesaid States. Therefore, it is submitted that a third round of counselling is required to be held in the special features of the case and that the vacant seats, if any, should arise in the 15 per cent all-India quota, seats should not be allowed to revert back to the States/colleges after 7-8-2002 and that instead successful and meritorious candidates in the all-India quota should be allotted these seats and pass such other orders as may be necessary.

4. This Court in Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Dinesh Kumar (Dr) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986) 3 SCC 727 while disapproving of the total reservation on different scores in regard to admission of students in medical courses such as MBBS and postgraduate specialities, stated that “the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the perspective of social justice would justify some extent of reservation preferences for students passing the qualifying examination”. The primary consideration in formulating the scheme for creating a reservation in favour of candidates is broadly based on national approach as against the State-based reservation. This background resulted in the formulation of the Scheme, which is sought to be interpreted or modified now. We should not read the schemes framed by this Court as if they are statutes or that inexorable rights are conferred upon the parties. For the academic year 2002-03, 1484 seats for MBBS course and 150 seats for BDS course, totalling 1634 seats were made available by the States under the 15% all-India quota. On the basis of the results declared by Respondent 2, 2778 successful candidates were sent call letters. By the end of the first round of counselling, the entire 1634 seats were allotted up to 1835th rank.

5. The contention of the petitioners is that inasmuch as certain circumstances have arisen in view of change of date in the matter of counselling and the date by which intimation of the vacancy position to the Director General of Health Services, the Scheme framed by this Court in Sharwan Kumar case (1993) 3 SCC 332 is not being given full effect with the consequence of seats reverting to States thus frustrating the Scheme framed by this Court.

6. As per clause 14 of the Scheme, if the Dean or the Principal of the college concerned does not notify the vacancy position due to non-joining of candidate or candidates in the first round of counselling before the date indicated therein, the seats allotted to the college will be treated as vacant and allotment of candidates will be made against these deemed vacant seats and it shall be the responsibility of the Dean or the Principal of the college concerned to give admission to those candidates. The second round of allotment by personal appearance will be for candidates who were allotted a seat in the first round and who wish to change their allotted college/course and wish to join the same against vacancies arising due to non-joining of the candidates allotted in the first round of personal appearance and for candidates on the merit list who could not be considered for allotment in the first round. It is thus the second round of counselling by personal appearance was to be concluded by a particular date.

7. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders of this Court and the manner in which it has to be worked out is also indicated therein, we do not think that if in a particular year there is any shortfall or a certain number of seats are not filled up, the same should be done by adopting one more round of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering the Scheme as and when seats are vacant. What is to be borne in mind is that broad equality will have to be achieved and not that it should result in any mathematical exactitude. Out of about 1600 seats, if 200 seats are not filled up for various reasons and such not-filled-up seats were much less in the earlier years, we do not think it should result in the third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under the all-India quota are filled up. That is not the object of the Scheme formulated by this Court. The object was to achieve a broad-based equality as indicated by us at the outset and we do not think that any steps have to be taken for altering the Scheme. We have taken identical view in the decision in Neelu Arora v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 366 and connected matters disposed of on 24-1-2003. Moreover, this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258 has taken the view that there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year. If these aspects are borne in mind, we do not think any reliefs as sought for by the petitioners can be granted under these petitions. These writ petitions shall stand dismissed.

8. By an interim order this Court had directed that the seats in the all-India quota should not revert to the States. As a consequence these seats have not been filled up either in the all-India quota or the State quota and with the dismissal of these petitions, that interim order gets dissolved. In IA No. 13 filed in WP (Civil) No. 393 of 2002, it is brought to our notice that the State of Kerala had extended the period of rank list up to 31-12-2002 only and thereafter applicants would lose their eligibility. It is made clear that the period of validity shall stand extended until appropriate steps are taken by the authorities concerned in that State.

9. Interlocutory applications filed shall stand disposed of in view of the order made by us in the main petitions.

Writ Petitions (C) No. 393 of 2002 with No. 473 of 2002, decided on January 27, 2003

Supreet Batra And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Supreet Batra And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Comments