Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

RAHUL SURENDER SHARMA Vs DR D. Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE PUNE

Bombay High Court

Mar 5, 2024

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner, Rahul Surender Sharma, a medical student who completed his MBBS and cleared the NEET PG Exam for MD Radio Diagnostics, was provisionally allotted a seat at Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Pune, on 24^th November 2023. The allotment was subject to conditions including full payment of fees and submission of necessary documents by 30^th November 2023, 5:00 p.m. The Petitioner faced difficulty making the full payment on time due to a technical glitch with a wire transfer but managed to pay Rs. 9 lakh by RTGS on the deadline date, albeit after the scheduled time. He also requested a concession and extension due to financial constraints and his father's illness, but these requests were not entertained by the College. Consequently, the College did not confirm the admission. The Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to confirm his admission and to grant the concession or extension requested.

Procedurally, the petition was originally filed on the original side of this Court and later transferred to the appellate side with leave granted on 13^th February 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court can direct the Respondent College to confirm the Petitioner's provisional allotment despite non-fulfillment of payment and document submission by the prescribed cut-off date.
Whether the time schedule for medical admissions can be extended or relaxed by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether a concession in fees or extension of time can be granted to the Petitioner on grounds of financial constraints and personal hardship.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner contended that the delay in payment and document submission was due to his father's cancer and technical difficulties with payment transfer.
The Petitioner argued that the seat was allotted provisionally within the schedule and that no other candidate was available to fill the seat, so non-confirmation would leave the seat vacant.
The Petitioner expressed willingness to make full payment and submit all documents if allowed to regularize the admission.
The Petitioner emphasized the loss of two crucial years of his career if the petition was not allowed.

Respondent No.1 (College) Arguments

The College stated that the Petitioner failed to comply with the schedule by not making full payment and not submitting all documents by the deadline.
The College submitted that payment was made after the prescribed time and these facts were communicated to the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The College relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict adherence to admission schedules and that no admission can be granted after the cut-off date, even if seats remain vacant.

Respondent No.2 (National Medical Commission) Arguments

The NMC submitted that the provisional admission was subject to Rules 9 to 11 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which prohibit admissions after the cut-off date.
The NMC relied on Supreme Court decisions including Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and others to assert that no extension of schedule can be granted.

Respondent Nos.3 and 5 Arguments

These respondents adopted the arguments of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and contended that the Court cannot extend the time schedule for medical admissions under Article 226.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors (2002) 7 SCC 258	Strict adherence to admission schedule in medical courses; no admission after cut-off date even if seat is vacant.	The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that the Petitioner’s failure to meet the deadline justified non-confirmation of admission.
Ashish Ranjan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors (2016) 11 SCC 225	Reinforcement of the principle that admission schedules must be strictly followed.	Supported the Respondents’ position that no extension or relaxation can be granted beyond the schedule.
Education Promotion Society for India & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors (2019) 7 SCC 38	Upholding strict timelines in educational admissions.	Used to affirm the Court’s stance on non-extension of admission deadlines.
Supreet Batra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 370	Enforcement of strict compliance with admission schedules in medical education.	Further buttressed the Court’s decision to dismiss the petition for non-compliance with the schedule.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s allotment was provisional and conditional upon full payment and submission of documents by the prescribed deadline. The Petitioner failed to fulfill these conditions within the stipulated time, making only a partial payment after the deadline and not submitting all original documents. The Court referred to binding Supreme Court precedents which mandate strict adherence to admission schedules in medical courses and prohibit admissions beyond the cut-off dates, regardless of seat vacancy. The Court found no infirmity in the Respondents’ refusal to confirm the Petitioner’s admission. It held that the Court cannot, under Article 226, extend or relax the time schedule fixed by the Respondents, thus upholding the principle of procedural strictness in medical admissions.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, refusing to interfere with the Respondents’ decision not to confirm the Petitioner’s admission due to non-compliance with the admission schedule.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Petitioner’s provisional allotment was not regularized, and the seat was not confirmed. The Court did not grant any extension or concession. No new legal precedent was created; rather, the decision reaffirmed existing Supreme Court principles regarding strict adherence to medical admission schedules and the non-justiciability of extending such schedules under Article 226.

Show all summary ...

Sayyed 902-WP(ST)-6698-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.6698 OF 2024

Rahul Surender Sharma,

Age- 25, Occ:- Medical Student, Having address at - House No.595, Sector - 9, Faridabad Sector - 7, Faridabad, Haryana - 121 006. ..Petitioner Versus

1. Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Pune, Hospital and Research Centre, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri,

Pune - 411 018.

2. National Medical Commission Pocket 14, Sector 8,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 007.

3. Medical Counselling Committee Nirwan Vihar, New Delhi - 110 092.

4. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Secretary Medical Education Department). Maharashtra State, Mumbai - 400 032. (copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Mumbai)

5. Directorate General of Health Services Through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011. ..Respondents __________

Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha with Mr. Rohit Pandey, Mr. Swapnil Wagh & Ms. Vinita Dandekar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ganesh K. Gole a/w Mr. Viraj Shelatkar for Respondent No.2 (NMC). Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. S. P. Shetye, AGP for Respondent No.4 (State).

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent Nos.3 & 5.

1 of 7

2024:BHC-AS:11167-DB

__________

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &

JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : 5^thMARCH 2024. Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief :-

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to confirm the seat allotted to the Petitioner for MD Radio diagnostics in Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Pune in the special stray round be secured by allotting admission letter to the petitioner".

Brief facts are as under :

3. The Petitioner has completed his MBBS Course and cleared his National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) PG Exam for the course of MD Radio Diagnostics. Based on his score, the Petitioner was allotted a seat in Respondent No.1-College on 24^thNovember 2023 on provisional basis. The allotment letter mentioned certain conditions to be fulfilled failing which the allotted seat will be cancelled and security deposit will be forfeited. As per the schedule of special stray vacancy round, the Petitioner was to make the payment of fees by 30^thNovember 2023 upto 5:00 p.m. and furnish all the documents. On 30^thNovember

2 of 7

2023, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the wire transfer of 10,000/- (US Dollars) could not be effected on account of technical glitch. However, by RTGS he made a payment of Rs.9 lakh on 30^th November 2023. On the same day, the Petitioner by email requested Respondent No.1-College to consider his application for concession due to his financial constraints to make the payment of the fees and requested Respondent No.1-College to give concession. The Petitioner also requested for extension of the reporting time to resolve the matter. However the Respondent No.1 did not entertain the said request and it is on this backdrop that the Petitioner is before us.

4. The Petitioner submits this this is not a case where the seat is sought to be filled up after the scheduled time prescribed by the Respondents. The Petitioner was allotted provisional allotment letter on 24^thNovember 2023 as per the schedule. However, since the Petitioner's father was suffering from cancer there was a delay on his part to make the payment and furnish all the necessary documents by 30 ^thNovember 2023. The Petitioner submits that if the prayers sought for are not granted then the seat will be left vacant as there is no other candidate to fill up the seat. The Petitioner further submitted that they are willing to make the full payment and submit all the documents to regularize the admission. The Petitioner further submitted that if the prayers sought

3 of 7

for are not granted then the Petitioner would be losing two crucial years of his career. The Petitioner, therefore, prayed that considering all the circumstances the Petition be allowed.

5. The Respondent No.1-College submitted that as per the schedule, the Petitioner was to make the payment of the fees and submit all the documents by 30^thNovember 2023 by 5:00 p.m. However, the Petitioner could not make the payment of the fees and also could not furnish all the documents. The Petitioner made the payment of Rs.9 lakh at 18:48 hours. The Respondent No.1-College submitted that these facts were communicated to the Respondent No.2-NMC. The Respondent No.1-College further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors¹. and other decisions have held that in medical admission, schedule has to be strictly adhered to and even if the seats goes vacant no admission can be granted after the cut-off date.

6. The Respondent No.2-NMC submitted that the admission was on provisional basis and as per Rules 9 to 11 of "Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 no admission can be given after the cut-off date. The Respondent No.2 relied upon the decision in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors (supra), Ashish Ranjan

1 (2002) 7 SCC 258

4 of 7

& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors². and Education Promotion Society for India & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.³and prayed that if there is violation of the schedule then no extension can be granted.

7. The Respondent Nos.3 and 5 adopted the arguments of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the time schedule for medical admission.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents annexed to the Petition.

9. This Petition was originally filed on the original side of this Court and was numbered as Writ Petition (L) No.2461 of 2024. On 13 ^th February 2024, leave was granted by this Court to file the same on the appellate side. Pursuant thereto the Petitioner has filed present writ petition on the appellate side.

10. The allotment of seat to the Petitioner on 24^thNovember 2023 was provisional and not final. The said provisional allotment was subject to the Petitioner submitting all the documents and making the payment

2 (2 016) 11 SCC 2 2 5

3 (2019) 7 SCC 3 8

5 of 7

of the fees on or before 30^thNovember 2023. Admittedly, there is no dispute that by 30^thNovember 2023, the Petitioner could not make the full payment of the fees, but paid only Rs.9 lakh and that too after the time provided in the schedule had expired. The Petitioner in his email requested Respondent No.1-College to consider his prayer for some concession in the fees since the same was very high for him. Admittedly, the Petitioner also did not file all the original documents by 30 ^th November 2023. Therefore, on both these counts i.e. non-furnishing of original documents and non-payment of full fees by 30 ^thNovember 2023, the Respondents did not confirm the admission of the Petitioner. We do not see any infirmity in the same.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors (supra) and in the case of Supreet Batra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors⁴. have consistently held that the time schedule for admission to the medical courses has to be strictly adhered to and no seats can be allotted after the cut-off period even if the seat goes vacant. In the instant case, by 30^thNovember 2023, the Petitioner failed to make the payment of the fees nor had he filed all the original documents and therefore the Respondents were justified in not confirming the allotment of the seat to the Petitioner. We cannot in exercise of Article 226 of the

4 (2003) 3 SCC 370

6 of 7

Constitution of India extend the time schedule fixed by the Respondents in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred hereinabove.

12. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

7 of 7