Moot Points;
47. The Court is not oblivious to the importance of maintaining strict standards in admissions to professional courses. Medical and dental admissions cannot be permitted to depend upon unilateral institutional discretion contrary to statutory requirements. The principles of transparency, merit, fairness and adherence to the prescribed admission schedule are indispensable, and courts must be slow to validate admissions which circumvent those requirements. The present case, however, does not involve admissions beyond the sanctioned intake, admissions after the cut-off date, candidates lacking basic academic eligibility, or displacement of candidates selected through the prescribed State process. Nor is there any allegation that the ten students were not genuine NRI candidates or that their NRI status was fabricated to facilitate admission.
48. What the case presents is a peculiar consequence of the transitional regulatory regime prevailing during the academic session 2016–17. NEET had been statutorily introduced, but Government/State Quota seats in Jammu and Kashmir continued, for that academic session, under the State admission mechanism. BOPEE could fill only 22 of the 40 State Quota seats. Eighteen sanctioned seats remained vacant. The Institute filled those vacancies before the cut-off date, including ten candidates belonging to the NRI category.
49. The respondents have proceeded substantially on the premise that because the candidates were NRIs, their seats must necessarily be treated as NRI/Management Quota seats and must consequently satisfy the NEET requirement. For the reasons already recorded, that premise cannot be accepted. The legal character of a seat is not determined exclusively by the personal category of its occupant. It is determined principally by the sanctioned seat matrix and the regulatory framework governing that seat. Once this distinction is appreciated, the foundation of the impugned action becomes unsustainable. The 60 Management Quota seats had already been exhausted. The ten students were accommodated within the 18 existing State Quota vacancies. The total sanctioned intake remained 100. No additional seats were created. No candidate selected by BOPEE was displaced. No admission was made beyond the cut-off date.
50. The amended DCI regulation relied upon by the respondents for making NEET marks compulsory was published only on 12.07.2017, by which time the admissions for the academic session 2016–17 had long since been completed. A subsequently crystallised regulatory position cannot, in the absence of an express retrospective mandate, be employed to invalidate admissions made during an earlier academic session under the legal regime then prevailing. The subsequent conduct of the authorities fortifies this conclusion for purposes of moulding relief. Complete particulars of the admissions were furnished to the University and the DCI. The University issued roll numbers. The DCI considered the matter in March 2017 but communicated the discharge direction only in August 2017. The students thereafter continued under interim protection granted by this Court.
51. It bears emphasis that the admissions are not being sustained on considerations of sympathy or merely because of the passage of time. Sympathy cannot override a statutory prohibition. The conclusion rests principally upon the character of the seats against which the students were admitted and the regulatory exemption applicable to those seats during the academic session 2016–17. The subsequent passage of time, the conduct of the authorities and the completion of the course are relevant only as additional considerations; they are not the foundation of the students' entitlement.
Full Judgment;
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
OWP No. 1884/2017
Reserved on: 29.07.2026.
Pronounced on: 27.08.2026
01. Simron Randhawa and others.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
v/s
Union of India through its Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, AND OTHERS
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. By this common judgment, both writ petitions, which arise out of
the same factual matrix and involve substantially identical questions of fact
and law, are being taken up together for consideration and disposal. The
controversy relates to the admission of ten students to the Bachelor of Dental
Surgery (BDS) course in the Institute of Dental Sciences, Sehora, Jammu
(hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”), for the academic session 2016–17.
The Institute is affiliated with the University of Jammu and has a sanctioned
annual intake of 100 students in the BDS course. Of these 100 seats, 60
constitute the Management Quota and the remaining 40 constitute the State
Quota.
2. The case projected by the petitioners is that, prior to the academic
session 2016–17, admissions against the State Quota seats were ordinarily made
on the basis of merit secured in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the Jammu
and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (“BOPEE”), whereas the
Management Quota seats were filled through the entrance examination conducted
by the Association of Private Unaided Medical OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 4
of 36and Dental Colleges of
Jammu and Kashmir, subject to the applicable statutory and regulatory
framework.
3. It is further pleaded that, during the academic sessions 2010–11
to 2015–16, ten seats were being filled from amongst genuine NRI candidates on
the basis of their inter se merit determined with reference to marks obtained
in the qualifying 10+2 examination or equivalent examination. The petitioners
have referred, in this regard, to the regulatory regime operating in the
erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly the Jammu and Kashmir
Private Medical Education Institutions (Selection and Admission) Rules, 1996,
as subsequently amended.
4. The petitioners also rely upon the distinction between the regulatory
position governing MBBS admissions and that governing BDS admissions. It is
their case that, although the Medical Council of India (“MCI”), by circular
dated 16.01.2015, had sought to prescribe Common Entrance Test merit for NRI
admissions to MBBS courses, the said circular was subsequently set aside and
withdrawn. According to the petitioners, no corresponding circular had been
issued by the Dental Council of India (“DCI”) specifically requiring NRI candidates
seeking admission to the BDS course, under the regulatory regime then
prevailing, to qualify a particular OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 5
of 36common entrance
examination prior to the introduction of NEET.
5. A material change in the statutory regime occurred with the introduction
of Section 10D by the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2016, with effect from
24.05.2016. Section 10D contemplated a uniform entrance examination, namely the
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (“NEET”), for admission to undergraduate
and postgraduate dental courses. The controversy in the present proceedings, however,
arises in the context of the transitional academic session 2016–17 and the
exemption granted in respect of Government/State Quota seats in certain States,
including Jammu and Kashmir.
6. The specific case of the petitioners is that, notwithstanding the
introduction of Section 10D, Government/State Quota seats in Jammu and Kashmir
were, for the academic session 2016–17, exempted from the requirement of
admission on the basis of NEET and continued to be governed by the State admission
mechanism. The significance of this exemption lies at the heart of the present
controversy, for the legality of the ten admissions would substantially depend
upon whether the seats against which the students were admitted retained their
character as State Quota seats or were, OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 6
of 36instead, independent
NRI/Management Quota seats. For the academic session 2016–17, all 60 Management
Quota seats in the Institute were admittedly filled on the basis of NEET merit.
There is no controversy regarding those admissions. Of the remaining 40 State
Quota seats, however, BOPEE was able to fill only 22. Consequently, 18 seats
earmarked as State Quota seats remained vacant after completion of the BOPEE
process.
7. The case now specifically pleaded by the Institute is that, in exercise
of the authority available to it under the Jammu and Kashmir Private Medical
Education Institutions (Selection and Admission) Rules, 1996, as amended from time
to time, it proceeded to fill those 18 vacant seats so that sanctioned seats in
a professional course would not remain unutilised. Eight of those seats were filled
by candidates who had qualified NEET-2016, whereas the remaining ten were
filled from amongst genuine NRI candidates on the basis of their inter se merit
in the qualifying examination. The admissions were completed before 15.10.2016,
i.e., within the permissible admission schedule. The University thereafter
issued roll numbers to the students and the Institute furnished particulars of
all 100 admitted candidates to the DCI. OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 7
of 36
8. The dispute surfaced when the DCI, by communication dated
23.08.2017, directed the Institute to discharge the ten NRI students on the
ground that they had not qualified NEET-2016 and that their admissions were,
therefore, contrary to Section 10D of the Dentists Act and the applicable
regulatory framework. The record indicates that the Executive Committee of the
DCI had taken the relevant decision on 09.03.2017, although the same was communicated
to the Institute only subsequently.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the Institute as well as the affected
students instituted the present writ petitions. Interim protection came to be
granted in favour of the students. The Institute contends that, by the time the
impugned direction was communicated, the students had already completed a
substantial part of the first year and had progressed in their professional
studies.
10. The University of Jammu and the DCI have opposed the petitions.
Their principal submission is that qualification in NEET was mandatory for
candidates admitted under the NRI category during the academic session 2016–17.
According to them, the statutory exemption granted to Jammu and Kashmir was
confined to Government/State Quota seats and could not be invoked to validate
admissions made OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 8 of 36against an independent
NRI quota. Considerable reliance has also been placed by the respondents upon
the advertisements issued by the Institute itself. In the advertisement dated
12.09.2016, the Institute required NRI candidates to have qualified NEET. A
subsequent advertisement dated 17.09.2016 prescribed qualification in the 10+2
examination with the requisite subjects and marks and stated that preference
would be accorded to candidates who had qualified NEET. According to the respondents,
the advertisements demonstrate that the Institute itself understood NEET
qualification to be relevant, if not mandatory, for NRI admissions. The DCI
accordingly maintains that, the ten students admittedly not having qualified
NEET-2016, their admissions were void ab initio and incapable of being
validated by subsequent events. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, upon the
order of the Supreme Court in Vigyan Bharti Trust v. Union of India & Ors.
and upon the BDS Regulations governing admissions.
11. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Institute moved an
application dated 26.04.2022 seeking amendment of its pleadings in light of
subsequent judicial developments concerning admissions of non-NEET-qualified
candidates to BDS courses during the academic session 2016–17. The OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 9 of 36amendment was allowed by this Court on 12.06.2023.In the amended
pleadings, the Institute specifically clarified that the ten students were not
admitted against any independent NRI quota over and above the sanctioned or
prescribed seat matrix. Its case is that they were admitted against ten of the 18
State Quota seats which had remained vacant after BOPEE had concluded its
admission process.
12. The respondents contend that this amended pleading is an attempt
to improve upon or alter the original case, since the students had initially
been described as NRI-category admissions. That objection, however, cannot, by
itself, determine the legality of the admissions. Once the amendment was
permitted by this Court and became part of the pleadings, the Court is required
to adjudicate the controversy on the basis of the pleadings as they presently stand,
read with the contemporaneous record. More importantly, nomenclature employed
by a party cannot conclusively determine the legal character of a seat. That question
must be answered by examining the sanctioned seat matrix, the quota to which
the seat originally belonged, the applicable statutory regime and the
circumstances in which the vacancy arose and was subsequently filled.
13. In the backdrop of the rival submissions, the following principal
questions arise for determination: (i) Whether the Institute was legally
competent to fill the 18 State Quota seats which remained vacant after
completion of the BOPEE admission process; (ii) Whether, for the academic
session 2016–17, qualification in NEET was mandatory in respect of
Government/State Quota BDS seats in Jammu and Kashmir; (iii) Whether the ten
students were admitted against an independent NRI/Management Quota or against
seats which continued to form part of the vacant State Quota; and (iv)
Depending upon the answers to the aforesaid questions, whether the DCI was justified
in directing discharge of the ten students solely because they had not
qualified NEET-2016.
14. Before examining the legal issues, certain foundational facts, which
are either admitted or not seriously disputed, deserve to be identified. The
sanctioned annual intake of the Institute was 100 BDS seats. Sixty seats formed
part of the Management Quota and all 60 were filled on the basis of NEET merit.
The remaining 40 seats constituted the State Quota. BOPEE could fill only 22
out of those 40 State Quota seats. Eighteen seats consequently remained vacant.
Thereafter, eight NEET-qualified candidates and the ten students with whom the
present proceedings are concerned OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 11
of 36were admitted. The total
number of admissions did not exceed the sanctioned intake of 100.
15. It is also significant that all the admissions in question were completed
before the prescribed cut-off date. Nothing placed before this Court suggests
that any of the ten students was admitted after expiry of the permissible
admission schedule. This circumstance assumes importance when the respondents'
reliance upon decisions dealing with admissions made after the statutory
cut-off date is considered.
16. SRO-297, which amended the Jammu and Kashmir Private Medical
Education Institutions (Selection and Admission) Rules, 1996 notified through
SRO-46, enhanced the permissible percentage of NRI admissions from 5% to 10%. In
an institution having an annual sanctioned intake of 100 seats, the permissible
number of admissions from amongst NRI candidates could, therefore, extend to
ten, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by law.
17. The position concerning NEET during the academic session 2016–17
is equally material. Section 10D introduced NEET as the uniform entrance
examination for admission to dental courses. However, the academic session
2016–17 was a transitional year in which an exception was made in respect OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 12 of 36of Government/State Quota seats of States which continued with
their own entrance examination or admission mechanism.
18. The communication dated 12.07.2017 issued by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, which forms part of the record, lends support to the
contention that Government/State Quota seats in dental colleges situated in Jammu
and Kashmir, along with similarly situated States and Union Territories, were
exempted from the NEET requirement for the academic session 2016–17, subject to
the State having exercised the permissible option.
19. Thus, the proposition that every BDS seat in Jammu and Kashmir,
irrespective of the quota to which it belonged, necessarily required NEET
qualification during the academic session 2016–17 cannot be accepted without
qualification. The statutory and regulatory position requires the Court first
to identify the quota to which the disputed seats belonged. If the seats were
Management Quota/NRI Quota seats, one set of consequences may follow. If,
however, they continued to be State Quota seats falling within the transitional
exemption, the matter would stand on an entirely different footing.
20. This brings the Court to what is, in substance, the central issue
in the case: whether the ten students were admitted against an independent NRI
quota or against ten vacant State Quota seats. In determining that issue, a
distinction must necessarily be maintained between the category or status of a
candidate and the character of the seat against which the candidate is
admitted. These are conceptually distinct matters. A candidate may possess NRI
status, but it does not inexorably follow that every seat occupied by such candidate
acquires the legal character of an NRI or Management Quota seat. The character
of a seat must ordinarily be traced to the sanctioned seat matrix and the regulatory
framework under which the seat was earmarked. A seat which formed part of the
State Quota does not automatically cease to be a State Quota seat merely because,
after the State counselling mechanism has been exhausted, it is filled by an
eligible candidate belonging to a particular category. Conversion of the
character of a seat must have some basis in law or in the applicable admission rules;
it cannot be inferred solely from the personal status of the candidate
eventually admitted against it.
21. In the present case, the sanctioned seat matrix assumes decisive
significance. All 60 Management Quota seats had OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 14
of 36already been filled on NEET
merit. There was, therefore, no unfilled Management Quota seat against which
the ten disputed admissions could ordinarily be adjusted. What remained vacant
were 18 seats out of the 40 seats earmarked for the State Quota. The record
further indicates that eight of those 18 vacant seats were filled by NEET- qualified
candidates. The remaining ten were filled by candidates possessing NRI status.
Unless the respondents are able to demonstrate that, by operation of a
statutory provision or binding regulation, those ten seats stood converted from
State Quota seats into independent NRI/Management seats, the mere NRI status of
the candidates cannot, by itself, bring about such conversion.
22. The respondents' argument, in substance, proceeds from the description
of the candidates as NRI candidates to the conclusion that the seats must
necessarily have been NRI seats. Such reasoning reverses the proper inquiry.
The first question is: to which quota did the vacant seats belong? Only
thereafter does the question arise whether the candidates selected for those
seats satisfied the eligibility and merit requirements legally applicable to
that quota. Tested on that basis, the material on record supports the Institute's
case that the ten admissions were made against OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 15
of 36seats which had
originally formed part of the 40-seat State Quota and which had remained vacant
after BOPEE could fill only 22 seats. The admissions did not encroach upon the 60
Management Quota seats, nor did they increase the sanctioned intake beyond 100.
23. The regulatory history relating to NRI admissions also requires
consideration. The MCI circular dated 16.01.2015 requiring NRI admissions to
MBBS courses to be based upon Common Entrance Test merit was quashed by the Karnataka
High Court. The Special Leave Petition against that decision was dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 06.07.2015, whereafter the circular was withdrawn. The material
placed before this Court indicates that no corresponding DCI circular
specifically governing NRI admissions to BDS courses had been issued at the
relevant point of time.
24. Section 10D undoubtedly introduced NEET as the uniform entrance
examination. The Court cannot dilute that statutory mandate. At the same time,
the statutory mandate has to be applied in the manner in which it operated
during the particular academic session under consideration. The academic
session 2016–17 was subject to the transitional exemption relating to
Government/State Quota seats. The OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 16
of 36decisive question,
therefore, remains whether the ten seats fell within that exempted quota.
25. The petitioners have relied upon “T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State
of Karnataka”, (2002) 8 SCC 481; “Islamic Academy of Education v. State of
Karnataka” , (2003) 6 SCC 697; P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6
SCC 537; and Modern Dental College, decided on 02.05.2016, in support of the
proposition that private unaided professional institutions enjoy a measure of autonomy
in matters of admission, though such autonomy remains subject to valid
statutory regulation and to the overriding requirements that the admission
process be fair, transparent, merit-oriented and non-exploitative.
26. Particular reliance has been placed upon P.A. Inamdar, wherein the
Supreme Court considered the position of NRI seats in private professional
institutions. The Supreme Court recognised that a limited percentage of seats
could be made available to genuine NRI candidates, subject to safeguards
intended to prevent misuse of the quota and subject also to the requirement
that merit should not be completely sacrificed. The principle emerging from
P.A. Inamdar is, therefore, not that an institution enjoys an unrestricted
power to admit any candidate merely on the OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 17
of 36basis of NRI status. The
principle is that a limited NRI dispensation can be recognised, but it must
operate bona fide, within the prescribed ceiling, and through a mechanism which
does not altogether abandon merit.
27. In the present case, the ten candidates were selected within the
10% ceiling contemplated under the applicable State regulatory framework. Their
inter se merit was determined with reference to marks obtained in Physics,
Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination. Significantly, it is not alleged
that any of the ten students was a fictitious or non- genuine NRI candidate,
that any lacked the minimum academic qualification for admission to the BDS
course, that the selection was made after the cut-off date, or that the sanctioned
intake was exceeded. The objection of the respondents is essentially confined
to the absence of NEET qualification. That objection would undoubtedly be
decisive if the ten seats were seats to which NEET mandatorily applied. It
loses that decisive character, however, if the seats were vacant State Quota
seats falling within the exemption applicable to Jammu and Kashmir for the
academic session 2016–17.
28. The next question is whether, after BOPEE had exhausted the State
counselling process, the Institute could lawfully fill OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 18 of 36the seats which remained vacant. The record indicates that candidates
selected through BOPEE were required to report to their allotted institutions
on or before 28.09.2016. Against the 40 State Quota seats available in the
petitioner- Institute, only 22 candidates ultimately joined through BOPEE. The
resultant 18 vacancies are supported by the information furnished by BOPEE and
brought on record with the amended writ petition.
29. The Institute relies upon SRO-46 read with SRO-297 as the source
of its authority to fill the vacancies in the circumstances then prevailing.
The respondents have not demonstrated that, after completion of the BOPEE
process, the Institute was under an absolute statutory prohibition against
filling the remaining seats before the final cut-off date, even where otherwise
eligible candidates were available.
30. This aspect cannot be viewed in isolation from the purpose underlying
the admission schedule. The object of prescribing a centralised selection
process and a final cut-off date is to ensure fairness, transparency, merit and
certainty in professional admissions. It is not ordinarily an object of the regulatory
regime that sanctioned seats in recognised professional institutions should
remain vacant despite the OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 19 of 36availability of eligible
candidates, unless the law expressly produces that consequence.
31. Reference in this regard may appropriately be made to “Index
Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors.” , AIR 2021 SC 3090. The Supreme Court emphasised that keeping recognised medical
seats vacant entails not only financial loss to educational institutions but
also a national waste of educational resources, and that a regulatory
restriction preventing the filling of seats must bear a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved.
32. The said decision cannot, of course, be read as authorising an
institution to disregard mandatory eligibility requirements or to make
admissions contrary to a statutory scheme. Its relevance to the present case
lies in the broader principle that a regulatory regime should not be
interpreted so as to compel wastage of sanctioned professional seats unless
such consequence is clearly required by law. Here, the Institute had 18 actual
vacancies within its sanctioned State Quota. The admissions were completed
within the prescribed time. The sanctioned intake was not exceeded. There is no
allegation that any candidate having a superior enforceable claim to those
seats was displaced. Nor has it OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 20
of 36been shown that the
filling of these seats prejudiced any candidate selected through BOPEE.
33. In these circumstances, if the State regulatory framework authorised
the Institute to fill the residual vacancies after exhaustion of the BOPEE
process, the exercise of such authority cannot be invalidated merely because
the Institute chose to fill otherwise vacant seats rather than allow them to
lapse, provided the candidates satisfied the eligibility requirements
applicable to those seats.
34. Much emphasis has been placed upon the advertisements dated
12.09.2016 and 17.09.2016. The first advertisement required NRI candidates to
have qualified NEET, whereas the later advertisement stated that preference
would be given to NEET-qualified candidates. The advertisements are undoubtedly
relevant pieces of contemporaneous evidence and cannot be ignored. They may
indicate that the Institute itself was uncertain about the exact regulatory
position then prevailing or initially proceeded on the assumption that NEET
qualification might be necessary. Nevertheless, an advertisement issued by a
private institution cannot enlarge the scope of a statutory requirement, nor
can it create a statutory disqualification where none otherwise existed under
the governing law. The legality of an admission must OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 21 of 36ultimately be tested against the statute, the applicable regulations
and the binding governmental framework, and not solely against an assumption
reflected in an advertisement. The variation between the two advertisements, in
fact, reinforces the conclusion that there was uncertainty during the
transitional academic session. While such uncertainty does not excuse a
violation of a clear statutory command, it becomes relevant where the very applicability
of the NEET requirement depended upon the character of the seat against which
the admission was made.
35. The respondents have questioned the amended stand of the Institute
by contending that the students were originally described as having been
admitted under the NRI category, whereas the Institute subsequently asserted
that they had been accommodated against vacant State Quota seats. This objection
does not merit acceptance as a ground for non- suiting the petitioners. The
amendment application was considered by this Court and was allowed on
12.06.2023. The amended pleadings have, therefore, become part of the record
and must receive consideration in accordance with law. More importantly, the
amendment does not alter objective historical facts such as the sanctioned
intake of OWP
No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 22 of 36100 seats, the division of 60 Management Quota
and 40 State Quota seats, the filling of all 60 Management Quota seats, the
filling of only 22 State Quota seats through BOPEE, and the consequent availability
of 18 State Quota vacancies. Those facts are capable of independent verification
from the contemporaneous record.
36. The Court is concerned with the substance of the transaction
rather than merely the terminology employed by the Institute at different
stages. If the contemporaneous seat matrix establishes that the seats occupied
by the ten students were vacancies within the State Quota, their description as
“NRI candidates” does not, by itself, establish that they occupied ten
additional or independent NRI seats.
37. A substantially similar controversy arose in 2018 Supreme (Madras)
3458 proceedings concerning 13 students admitted under the NRI category to a
BDS course during the academic session 2016–17 without NEET qualification. The DCI
had objected to those admissions as being contrary to Section 10D of the
Dentists Act. The Division Bench took into account the peculiar transitional
position prevailing during the academic session 2016–17 and the exemption from
NEET applicable to State Government seats. Having regard to the availability of
Government/State Quota OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 23 of 36vacancies, the Court
directed that the students be accommodated against such vacancies and directed
the DCI to approve their admissions so that their professional education was
not destroyed on account of the regulatory confusion which had arisen.
38. The present case stands, in one material respect, on a stronger
factual footing. In the Madras case, accommodation had to be found against available
Government Quota vacancies. Here, according to the contemporaneous seat matrix,
18 State Quota vacancies were available in the petitioner-Institute itself.
Recognition of the ten admissions therefore neither requires creation of
supernumerary seats nor displacement of any regularly admitted candidate nor adjustment
in another institution.
39. Reference has also been made to proceedings before the Gujarat
High Court involving non-NEET-qualified candidates admitted against vacant
Government Quota BDS seats during the academic session 2016–17. Since learned
counsel for the respondents expressed lack of instructions regarding those
proceedings and the complete record thereof is not necessary for deciding the
present petitions, this Court does not consider it appropriate to rest its
conclusion upon those proceedings.
40. Reliance by the respondents upon “Vigyan Bharti Trust v. Union of
India & Ors” also does not carry their case further. The factual setting of
that case was materially different, particularly in relation to admissions made
beyond the relevant cut-off date. The present admissions were completed within
the permissible admission schedule. The dispute here does not concern the power
of an institution to make admissions after expiry of the cut-off date. It
concerns the different question whether NEET qualification was indispensable
for candidates admitted, before the cut-off date, against seats which continued
to form part of an exempted State Quota. A precedent must be applied with reference
to the legal principle laid down and the material facts in which that principle
arose. A decision concerning admissions made beyond a mandatory cut-off date
cannot automatically govern admissions made within time where the principal
dispute concerns the character of the seats and the applicability of a
transitional statutory exemption.
41. There is yet another aspect of the matter which, although not by
itself determinative of the legality of the admissions, cannot be ignored. The
Institute furnished particulars of all 100 students admitted during the
academic session 2016– 17 to the University of Jammu and the DCI in December OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 25 of 362016. The DCI was thus placed in possession of the relevant particulars,
including the particulars of the ten students presently in question. The
Executive Committee of the DCI considered the matter on 09.03.2017 and resolved
that the ten students should be discharged because they had not qualified
NEET-2016. Yet the decision was communicated to the Institute only on
23.08.2017, followed by another communication dated 12.10.2017. By that stage,
the students had already spent substantial time pursuing the BDS course. The
University of Jammu had issued roll numbers to them and had permitted them to
participate in the academic process. Thus, the admissions were not clandestine
admissions discovered years later. The relevant particulars had been placed
before the authorities at an early stage.
42. This Court is conscious that neither delay nor acquiescence can
validate an admission which is prohibited by statute. If NEET qualification was
an absolute statutory condition applicable to these ten seats, mere delay by
the DCI could not confer legality upon admissions otherwise void. The significance
of the delay is different. Once this Court finds, for independent reasons, that
the seats were State Quota vacancies falling within the peculiar exemption
governing OWP
No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 26 of 36the academic session 2016–17, the subsequent
delay of the authorities becomes relevant while considering the nature of relief.
Students who were permitted to continue their studies while the authorities
themselves took considerable time to communicate and pursue the objection ought
not, in the absence of fraud or lack of basic eligibility, to bear the entire burden
of administrative uncertainty.
43. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the earlier judgment
reported as 2012 Legal Eagle (J&K) 857 also does not advance their case.
The record indicates that, in proceedings arising from that judgment, the
Division Bench, by order dated 31.01.2017, directed that the observations made
by the Writ Court should not be treated as a precedent in future cases. The
said judgment cannot, therefore, be regarded as determinative of the
controversy presently before this Court.
44. The four questions framed in paragraph 17 may now be answered. As
regards the first question, the record establishes that BOPEE could fill only
22 of the 40 State Quota seats, leaving 18 vacancies. The Institute has demonstrated
its authority under the State regulatory framework then prevailing to fill
residual vacancies within the sanctioned intake after completion of the BOPEE OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 27 of 36process. No statutory provision has been brought to the notice of
this Court which, in the peculiar circumstances of the academic session
2016–17, required those seats necessarily to remain vacant until they lapsed.
The first question is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners, subject
always to compliance with the eligibility requirements legally applicable to
those seats.
45. As regards the second question, although Section 10D introduced
NEET as the uniform entrance examination, Government/State Quota BDS seats in
Jammu and Kashmir were, for the transitional academic session 2016–17, covered by
the exemption permitting continuation of the State admission mechanism. NEET
qualification was, therefore, not an indispensable requirement merely because
the admission was to a BDS course, if the seat in question genuinely formed
part of the exempted State Quota.
46. As regards the third question, the sanctioned seat matrix and the
contemporaneous factual position establish that all 60 Management Quota seats
had already been filled. The vacancies which remained thereafter were 18 out of
the 40 State Quota seats. The ten disputed admissions were accommodated within
those vacancies. The fact that the candidates belonged to the NRI category did
not, by itself, OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 28 of 36convert the underlying
State Quota seats into independent Management/NRI Quota seats. As regards the
fourth question, once the seats are held to have retained their character as
State Quota seats and once such seats were exempt from the NEET requirement
during the academic session 2016–17, the sole ground upon which the DCI directed
discharge of the students, namely their failure to qualify NEET-2016, cannot
sustain the impugned action.
47. The Court is not oblivious to the importance of maintaining strict
standards in admissions to professional courses. Medical and dental admissions
cannot be permitted to depend upon unilateral institutional discretion contrary
to statutory requirements. The principles of transparency, merit, fairness and
adherence to the prescribed admission schedule are indispensable, and courts
must be slow to validate admissions which circumvent those requirements. The
present case, however, does not involve admissions beyond the sanctioned
intake, admissions after the cut-off date, candidates lacking basic academic
eligibility, or displacement of candidates selected through the prescribed State
process. Nor is there any allegation that the ten students were not genuine NRI
candidates or that their NRI status was fabricated to facilitate admission.
48. What the case presents is a peculiar consequence of the transitional
regulatory regime prevailing during the academic session 2016–17. NEET had been
statutorily introduced, but Government/State Quota seats in Jammu and Kashmir
continued, for that academic session, under the State admission mechanism.
BOPEE could fill only 22 of the 40 State Quota seats. Eighteen sanctioned seats
remained vacant. The Institute filled those vacancies before the cut-off date,
including ten candidates belonging to the NRI category.
49. The respondents have proceeded substantially on the premise that
because the candidates were NRIs, their seats must necessarily be treated as
NRI/Management Quota seats and must consequently satisfy the NEET requirement. For
the reasons already recorded, that premise cannot be accepted. The legal
character of a seat is not determined exclusively by the personal category of
its occupant. It is determined principally by the sanctioned seat matrix and the
regulatory framework governing that seat. Once this distinction is appreciated,
the foundation of the impugned action becomes unsustainable. The 60 Management
Quota seats had already been exhausted. The ten students were accommodated
within the 18 existing State Quota vacancies. OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 30
of 36The total sanctioned
intake remained 100. No additional seats were created. No candidate selected by
BOPEE was displaced. No admission was made beyond the cut-off date.
50. The amended DCI regulation relied upon by the respondents for
making NEET marks compulsory was published only on 12.07.2017, by which time
the admissions for the academic session 2016–17 had long since been completed.
A subsequently crystallised regulatory position cannot, in the absence of an
express retrospective mandate, be employed to invalidate admissions made during
an earlier academic session under the legal regime then prevailing. The subsequent
conduct of the authorities fortifies this conclusion for purposes of moulding
relief. Complete particulars of the admissions were furnished to the University
and the DCI. The University issued roll numbers. The DCI considered the matter
in March 2017 but communicated the discharge direction only in August 2017. The
students thereafter continued under interim protection granted by this Court.
51. It bears emphasis that the admissions are not being sustained on
considerations of sympathy or merely because of the passage of time. Sympathy
cannot override a statutory prohibition. The conclusion rests principally upon
the OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP
No. 1882/2017 Page 31 of 36character of the seats against which the students were admitted
and the regulatory exemption applicable to those seats during the academic
session 2016–17. The subsequent passage of time, the conduct of the authorities
and the completion of the course are relevant only as additional considerations;
they are not the foundation of the students' entitlement.
52. The decision of the Madras High Court supra concerning similarly
situated BDS students who had not qualified NEET also illustrates the
difficulties occasioned by the transitional regulatory regime governing the
academic session 2016–17. In that case, relief was moulded by accommodating the
students against available Government/State Quota vacancies. The present case
stands on a stronger footing in that no such external adjustment is necessary:
sufficient vacancies in the State Quota were available in the petitioner- Institute
itself. The principle noticed in Index Medical College (supra) is also relevant
to the limited extent that sanctioned seats in professional courses ought not
ordinarily to remain unfilled without compelling regulatory justification. This
principle cannot, of course, override mandatory eligibility requirements.
However, where the disputed eligibility requirement was itself inapplicable to
the quota against OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 32 of 36which the admissions
were made, utilisation of otherwise vacant sanctioned seats by academically
eligible candidates does not defeat the regulatory framework.
53. On a cumulative consideration of the statutory scheme, the sanctioned
seat matrix, the exemption applicable to State Quota seats in Jammu and Kashmir
for the academic session 2016–17, the existence of 18 vacant State Quota seats,
and the authority available to the petitioner-Institute under SRO-46 read with
SRO-297, this Court finds that the direction to discharge the ten students
cannot be sustained. Significantly, there is no allegation that the sanctioned intake
was exceeded or that the students lacked the basic academic eligibility
prescribed for admission to the BDS course. The controversy appears to have
arisen substantially from the uncertainty attending the transitional regime of 2016–17
and from the respondents treating the category of the candidates as
determinative of the character of the seats. The relevant consideration,
however, is the seat against which an admission was actually made. The admitted
position that 18 State Quota seats remained vacant assumes significance in this
regard.
54. During the pendency of these proceedings, and under the protection
of interim orders passed by this Court, the ten students have completed the BDS
course. This circumstance does not cure an admission otherwise prohibited by
law, nor does it independently confer a right upon the students. It nevertheless
reinforces the consequences flowing from the legal position already determined.
At this stage, invalidating the admissions would neither restore the seats to
candidates possessing a superior claim nor correct any excess over the sanctioned
intake. Nor would it advance the object underlying Section 10D. It would merely
nullify qualifications earned over several years pursuant to admissions made
against sanctioned vacancies to which, for the reasons already recorded, the
NEET requirement was not applicable.
55. Courts must undoubtedly guard against
permitting equities to be created on the strength of admissions made contrary to
law. But where, upon examination of the governing statutory regime, the admissions
are found not to suffer from the illegality alleged by the regulatory
authority, relief cannot be denied merely because the litigation has remained pending
and the students have, in the meantime, completed their course. The completion
of the course does not create the right; it only reinforces the need to give
effect to the legal right otherwise established.
56. Accordingly, both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned communications
issued by the Dental Council of India, insofar as they direct the
petitioner-Institute to discharge the ten students on the ground that they had
not qualified NEET-2016, are quashed. It is declared that, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the ten students having been admitted against
vacancies forming part of the State Quota for the academic session 2016–17, and
such seats being covered by the exemption from NEET applicable to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir for that academic session, their admissions could not have
been invalidated solely on the ground that they had not qualified NEET-2016.A
writ of mandamus is, accordingly, issued directing the respondents to recognise
and treat the admissions of the ten students to the BDS course for the academic
session 2016–17 as valid for all academic purposes.
57. The University of Jammu shall consequently process their cases for
issuance of BDS degrees, certificates and other consequential academic
documents, subject to each student having fulfilled the requirements relating
to academics, attendance, internship, examinations and all other conditions
prescribed for award of the BDS degree. Any consequential action taken solely
on the basis of the OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 35 of 36communications quashed
herein shall stand effaced and shall not operate to the prejudice of the said
students. Both writ petitions, along with all connected applications, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
JAMMU
27.08.2026