Backdoor Entries In Educational Institutions Should Stop: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of 5 Medical Aspirants Granted Admission Sans Counselling

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that permitting backdoor entries to educational institutions would be grossly unfair to the students who are denied admission in such institutions despite being more meritorious.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

"It is high time that such backdoor entries in educational institutions, including Medical Colleges, should stop. Lakhs of students all over the country work hard and toil to secure admissions to educational institutions on the basis of their merit."

"To permit any backdoor entry to any educational institution would be grossly unfair to those who are denied admission, despite being more meritorious, on account of the seats being taken and blocked by such backdoor entrants."

The Court upheld the order of Medical Council of India, discharging five students who were granted admission in 2016 by L.N. Medical College Hospital without undergoing centralized counselling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME).

Discharge letters were issued to the students by MCI however, the Medical College continued to treat them as their students, allowed them to attend the course and appear in examinations.

The petitioners had then filed the petition seeking quashing of the discharge communications issued by the MCI and further directing that they be permitted to continue their studies as regular medical students.

A single judge vide order dated August 7, 2019 dismissed their petition.

In appeal filed by the students, the Division Bench noted,

"The petitioners have only themselves to blame for the mess that they find themselves in. Had they acted in terms of the discharge letter dated 26.04.2017, they would have saved four years of their lives. But they did not, and acted recklessly. Despite not having any interim orders in their favour in their writ petition, they continued to attend the course – obviously, at their own peril." 

The students had argued that no one higher in merit in the NEET examination has been denied admission at the respondent Medical College due to grant of admission to the petitioners.

However, the Court noted,

"if the respondent Medical College had informed the vacancy position to the DME on time, the DME would have conducted further counselling and sent names on merit on the basis of the NEET examination conducted in 2016. It is quite possible that the names of other candidates, more meritorious then the five petitioners, may have been sent. Since the respondent Medical College does not appear to have informed the DME of the vacancy position, and they proceeded to grant admissions to the five petitioners much before the close of the date of admission on 07.10.2016, the other meritorious students, obviously, remained unaware that they could stake a claim against a seat in the respondent Medical College on the basis of their merit."

It added that the admissions granted to the petitioners were outside the centralised counselling conducted by the DME. If the vacancies position had been communicated to the DME by the respondent Medical College on, or before 07.10.2016, the DME could have sent the names of candidates post counselling. However, it appears that was not done by the respondent Medical College, which proceeded to grant admission to the five petitioners much earlier, i.e. between 04.09.2016 and 28.09.2016. 

The bench was also of the view that grant of such admissions were in the teeth of Supreme Court's decision in Modern Dental College & Research Centre case which held that admissions to all Government and Private Medical Colleges in the county would be held throughout the centralized counselling system on the basis of the result of the NEET examination.

"The conduct of the petitioners and the respondent Medical College is, in fact, in gross contempt of not only the judgment in Modern Dental College & Research Centre, but also the order dated 22.09.2016 in Jainarayan Chaouksey," the Court observed.

Case Title: DEEPANSHU BHADORIYA & ORS v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS

Click Here To Read Order