Supreme Court clarifies MBBS Admission Rules: Maharishi Markandeshwar University vs. Akriti Sharma (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 449

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a medical college prioritize upgrading students from a management quota to a state quota over fresh applicants with higher merit during mop-up counseling? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving Maharishi Markandeshwar University. The court clarified the correct interpretation of admission rules, emphasizing the importance of merit in the admission process for medical courses. This case underscores the need for transparency and fairness in medical admissions, ensuring that deserving candidates are not overlooked.

Case Background

The first respondent, Akriti Sharma, a medical student, appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2021 and secured 456 marks. She initially joined a BDS course. The second respondent, Atal Medical and Research University, Himachal Pradesh, conducted centralized counseling for MBBS/BDS courses. After the second round of counseling, the medical college of the first appellant, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, had 44 vacant MBBS seats, including 4 under the state quota.

During the mop-up round, the first respondent applied for an MBBS seat under the state quota. However, the university upgraded three students (respondents 5, 6, and 7) from the management quota to the state quota, despite them having lower NEET scores than the first respondent. Consequently, the first respondent was denied an MBBS seat.

Aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the merit list and seeking admission to the MBBS course. The High Court ruled in her favor, directing the university to redraw the merit list and admit her.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of clauses 3, 4, and 9(e) of the Common/Centralized Counselling Prospectus for admission to MBBS and BDS courses.

Clause 3 states that after the first and second rounds of counseling, a mop-up round is conducted. Candidates must fill fresh choices for courses, colleges, and quotas. Shifting for upgradation of course and quota from private dental colleges to government dental colleges and government/private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and government dental colleges/MMMC Solan to government medical colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences of the course, college and quota shall be allowed.

Clause 4 provides that Himachali candidates admitted under the management quota will be automatically converted from the management quota to the state quota against vacant/drop-out seats, in order of merit.

Clause 9(e) states that after the second round of counseling, the private medical college (MMMCH, Solan) shall be allowed to fill-up the left-out seats under State/Management/NRI Quota at institution level by making wide publicity amongst eligible candidates.

Arguments

Appellants’ (University) Arguments:

• The university argued that the mop-up round was conducted as per clause 4 of the prospectus.
• They contended that the list sent by the second respondent did not include the first respondent’s name.
• The university stated that they automatically upgraded respondents 5, 6, and 7 from the management quota to the state quota.
• They also filled the remaining management quota/NRI seats.
• The university argued that the first session of the MBBS course was completed and that if the High Court order was upheld, a student would have to be ousted, which would be unfair.
• The university also submitted that the total number of admissions in the institution cannot exceed 150, and granting admission to the first respondent would involve crossing the prescribed intake.
• In the alternative, the university requested to keep one seat vacant for the first respondent in the next academic year.

Respondent’s (Akriti Sharma) Arguments:

• The first respondent argued that there was no delay in seeking remedies before the High Court.
• She contended that clause 3 of the prospectus should have been followed first, and clause 4 should only be applied if seats remained vacant.
• She argued that she had higher merit than the students who were upgraded from the management quota.

Second Respondent’s (Atal Medical and Research University, Himachal Pradesh) Arguments:

• The second respondent supported the case of the first respondent.
• They referred to their letter stating that students admitted under the management quota could be admitted to the state quota only if no student with more marks in NEET applied in the mop-up round.
• They also sent an advisory to the appellants to review the conversion of management quota seats to state quota.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the appellants to redraw the merit list of admission to the MBBS course for granting admission to the first respondent for the academic session 2021-2022?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [1984] 3 SCC 654*, Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti [2005] 13 SCC 704*, and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [2012] 7 SCC 433* to emphasize that merit must be the primary consideration for admission to medical colleges.

✓ The Court cited Asha v. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences [2012] 7 SCC 389* to underscore the importance of merit, fairness, and transparency in the admission process.

✓ The Court referred to S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2020] 17 SCC 465* to discuss the nature of relief that can be granted to a meritorious student who is denied admission illegally.

✓ The Court referred to Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka [1998] 6 SCC 131*, Satyabrata Sahoo v. State of Orissa [2012] 8 SCC 203*, Faiza Choudhary v. State of J&K [2012] 10 SCC 149* and Aneesh D Lawande v. State of Goa [2014] 1 SCC 554* to reiterate that courts cannot issue directions to increase seats beyond the sanctioned strength.

✓ The Court cited National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992* to emphasize that courts cannot direct the creation of additional seats.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Merit: The court consistently emphasized that merit should be the primary consideration for admission to medical colleges. The first respondent had a higher NEET score than the students who were upgraded from the management quota.
• Interpretation of Prospectus: The court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation that clause 3 of the prospectus should be followed first, and clause 4 should only be applied if seats remain vacant after the mop-up round.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Intervention: The court acknowledged the limitations of judicial intervention in increasing the sanctioned intake of medical colleges. It also recognized that the academic session had already commenced, and it would be unfair to displace a student already admitted.
• Remedy: While the court recognized the injustice done to the first respondent, it could not grant admission for the same academic year. Instead, it directed compensation as a remedy.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they did not align with the principle of merit and the correct interpretation of the prospectus.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The first respondent had higher merit than the students who were upgraded from the management quota.
• The university incorrectly applied clause 4 of the prospectus before exhausting the options under clause 3.
• The court could not direct an increase in seats beyond the sanctioned strength.
• The academic session had already commenced, and it would be unfair to displace a student already admitted.
• The first respondent was entitled to a remedy for the injustice suffered.

The court stated, “The provisions of clause 3 are abundantly clear. The first respondent admittedly ranked higher in merit than the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. She was therefore clearly entitled to admission in terms of the provisions of clause 3.”

The court also noted, “As the High Court has correctly observed, clause 4 in its plain terms applies to vacant/drop out seats which would necessarily refer to the position as it obtains after the mop up round of counselling is completed.”

The court further stated, “However, we are clearly of the view that the first respondent cannot be left without any remedy. She has suffered though she ranked higher than the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in merit in the NEET -UG 2021.”

Key Takeaways

• Merit is paramount in medical admissions.
• Mop-up rounds must prioritize candidates with higher merit.
• Upgradation from management quota to state quota should only occur after exhausting all other options.
• Courts cannot direct an increase in seats beyond the sanctioned strength.
• Students who are wrongly denied admission are entitled to a remedy, which may include compensation.

This judgment clarifies the procedure for filling vacant MBBS seats during mop-up counseling and reinforces the importance of merit in medical admissions. It will likely impact future admission processes and ensure that deserving candidates are not overlooked.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay the first respondent compensation quantified at Rs. 10 lakhs within a month from the date of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the mop-up round of medical admissions, candidates with higher merit must be given priority over the upgradation of students from the management quota to the state quota. The court clarified that clause 3 of the prospectus must be followed before applying clause 4. This judgment reinforces the principle that merit is paramount in medical admissions and provides a remedy for students who are wrongly denied admission. There was no change in the previous positions of law, but the court has clarified the interpretation of the prospectus.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s order. While the court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation of the prospectus, it did not direct the university to redraw the merit list and admit the first respondent for the same academic year. Instead, the court directed the university to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the first respondent for the injustice she suffered. This case clarifies the correct procedure for filling vacant MBBS seats during mop-up counseling, emphasizing the need to prioritize merit and follow the prescribed rules.