Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exceeding its jurisdiction by restricting admissions to AMU and BHU and by limiting the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) to doctors who graduated within Uttar Pradesh, affirming that central university seats are filled on merit with up to 50% institutional preference and that the weightage under Regulation 9(iv) applies to all in‑service doctors irrespective of the state of their MBBS graduation.

Summary

The petitioners, doctors who had served in remote areas, challenged a High Court order that limited post‑graduate admissions at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to students who completed their MBBS in Uttar Pradesh and restricted the weightage under Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 MCI regulations to such doctors. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction because AMU and BHU are central universities whose seats are filled on merit with up to 50% institutional preference, and the State cannot control those seats. It further ruled that Regulation 9(iv) provides weightage to all in‑service doctors who have served in remote or difficult areas, irrespective of the state where they obtained their MBBS degree. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside, the earlier counselling and admissions were upheld, and the time for filling vacant seats was extended. The appeals and related interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the institutional preference at AMU and BHU and directing that PG seats be filled only by candidates who passed MBBS in Uttar Pradesh.
Whether the benefit of weightage under Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 MCI regulations should be limited to in‑service doctors who graduated within Uttar Pradesh.

Legislation cited

Medical Council of India Acts. 1956

Subjects

central universityinstitutional preferenceMedical Council of IndiaRegulation 9(iv)weightageremote area servicepost‑graduate admissionjurisdictionhigh court overreach

Judgment

(2017] 4 S.C.R. 286

A OR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8268 of 2017)
B JUNE07,2017 ·
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
C Regulations, .2000 ~ Regn. 9(1V) - Procedure for selection of.
candidate for Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges -
Weightage to in-service doctors, who have worked in remote or
difficult areas - High Court set aside the institutional preference in
Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University-Central
D Universities - Issuance of direction that the PG seats in these
institutions to be filled up only from those ,fiudents who have passed
MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in State of U.P.;
and that the benefit of.service rendered in remote/difficult areas to
be given only to those docto_rs of the Provincial Medical Health
Services (PMHS) who have cleared MBBS examination from a
E college within the State of U.P.- Justificatir;m of - Held: State can
have no control over the seats in the medical colleges which are
part of the central universities/institutions - These seats have to be
filled up on the basis of merit and institutional preference could he
given to the extent permissible i.e. 50% - Benefit of weightage in
F terms of Regn. 9(1V) is available to medical officers belonging to
PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas,
irrespective of the State of graduation - High Court overstepped its
jurisdiction while issuing the said directions - Order of Hig~ Court
as also direction issued by it, set aside.
Disposing of tJie appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 Both Aligarh Muslim University-AMU and
Banaras Hindu University-BHU are central universities. The State
· Government had issued a circular on 31.03.2017 clarifying that
students, who had done their MBBS/BDS final year from AMU
and BHU would be entitled for counselling only in the seats
H
286,...,
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 287
AND ORS.
' '

available in their own institutes-AMU and BHU. In the central A
universities 100% admissions for MBBS course are based on all
India examination. There is no State quota for seats in central
universities like AMU and BHU or other central institutions like
All India Institute of Medical Sciences etc. It is, thus, apparent .
that the State can have no control over the seats in those medical B
colleges which are part of the central universities/institutions.
These seats have to be filled up on the basis of merit and
institutional preference could be given to the extent permissible
i.e. 50%.[Para 11][293-C-E]
1.2 The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU,
which had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged C
by any body before the High Court. AMU and BHU were not
parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India
were also not parties before the High Court. The selected
candidates were not joined as respondents. The High Court did
not take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case D
of Saurabh Chaudri and other cases upholding institutional
preferences in central universities. The High Court did not also
,.~ i
take into consideration the f.act that the State had no power to
control admissions to these universities. Therefore, the High
Court overstepped its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of
the writ petition while issuing the direction relating to AMU and E
BHU. The order of the High Court is erroneous and is liable to
be set aside. [Para 12][294-B-D]
1.3 Regulation 9(IV) of the Medical Councii' of India Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 clearly provides
that an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks for each year F
can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served
in remote or difficult areas subject to the condition that,the highest
incentive will be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote
and difficult areas is vested with the State Government. The
purpose behind Regulation 9(1V) is that those doctors who G
willingly served in remote and difficult areas shonld be given some
preference while considering them for admission to post-graduate
courses. The intention is to benefit those who left the comforts
o( towns and cities and are willing to work in difficult conditions
'in remote and difficult areas. [Paras 13, 14][294-D-E, G-H]
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A 1.4 The circular issued fly the State ofU.P. clearly mentions
that benefit of Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations shall be
available to medical officers belonging to PMHS cadre, who have
served in remote and difficult areas. No distinction has been made
between those who have graduated from within the State of U.P.
B or those who have graduated from outside the State of U.P. Once
the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified their MBBS/
BDS examination from· within the State of U.P. or from any other
part of the country, are selected and join the medical health
service in t~e State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e.
PMHS. Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or
C difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the
basis as to which State they have done their graduation from.
Therefore, there is no reason as to why the benefit of weightage
in terms of Regulation 9(IV) should be limited to those in service
candidates of the PMHS category, who have graduated from within
D the State ofU.P. This is a totally artificial distinction drawn up by
the High Court. In fact, the State of U.P. had also not made any
.such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary was
categoricaLthat the 2000 Regulations had not created such a
divide or distinction. [Para 15] (295-D-GJ
1.5 The High Court erred in deciding that only those in
E service doctors who had cleared their MBBS examination from
within the State of U.P., were only entitled to the benefit of
Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations. Not only the High Court
transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the
writ petition but by the impugned order set at naught the entire
F selection process only two days before the last date of admissions
making it virtually impossible to comply with the direction of the
High Court within the short period of two days. [Paras 16,
17] [296-C-D]
1.6 In view of the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this
G Court in *Asl1ish Ranjan 's case, normally this Court would be
reluctant to extend the time. However, the instant case has some
peculiar facts of its own. The High Court has, on a totally
erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the counselling
on 29.05.2017 which would have resulted in fresh counselling
and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30'h or
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 289
AND ORS.

31.05.2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have A
taken only 2 days' time, would now require a minimum of 5 or 6
days' time because action would have to be taken afresh. [Para
20][296-H; 297-A-B]
1. 7 The judgment and order of the High Court, all directions
issued by it and all consequential action taken by the State of B
U.P. and/or any other authority pursuant to that order, is set aside.
Those who were counselled and granted admission prior to the
impugned judgement of the High Court would be permitted to
continue in their respective courses. The time for filling up the
vacant seats, if any, in AMU, BHU and Government run medical
colleges/institutions in the State of U.P. is extended. [Paras 18, C
21)[296-E; 297-C-D)
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dine.sh Singh Chauhan 2016 (8)
SCALE 16; Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152;
*Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 11 D
sec 225 - referred to
Case Law Reference
2016 (8) SCALE 16 referred to Para 9
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 referred to Para 11 E
(2016) 11 SCC 225 referred to Paras 19, 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8268
of 2017.
flf~m the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2017 of the High Court F
ofJudicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 17183of2017
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 8269, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273 and 8274 of2017.
Maninder Singh, Ajay Kumar Mishra, ASG, R. S. Suri,
Subramonium Prasad, Salman Khurshid, Indu Malhotra, Vivek Tankha, G
Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Ajay Kumar Mishra, S. S. Shamshery, AAG,
Arun Bhardwaj, Ashish Pandey, Sumit Sharma, Gauraan Bhardwaj,
Vishwa Pal Singh, Abhay Kumar,.Khalid Akhtar, Bilal Khan, Saurabh
Mishra, Himanshu, Aamir Hassan, Indra Sen Singh, Sarvesh Singh,
Pushkar Prehar, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. lndira, lmtiazAhmed, Anish
H
"'

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A Dayal, Zafar Khurshid, Miss Subhi Sharma, Miss Mithali Chauhan (for
Ashok Anand), Varun Singh, Tanvir Nayas, Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad,
Vrindavan Mishra, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amande~p Kaur, Prateek
Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur, Shubranshu Padhi, Kush Chaturvedi,
· R. K. Rathore, Ms. Alka Agrawitl, Ms. Rekha Pandey; Ajay Kumar
. B Sharma (for G. S. Makkar), Shrivandap. Mishram, S:'Uday~$umar Sagar,
Arm1 Sharma, Ankit Raj (for Ms. R"chi Kohli), Devansh Mohta, Raghav
· Dwivedi and Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA,J. ! .Applications for permission to file special
c leave petitions are allowed. Applications for impleadment/intervention
are also allowed.
2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
3. ~y this.order we are disposing of all the aforesaid civil appeals
as well as interlocutory application( s) relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh
D in Writ Petition (C) No. 76of2015. Keeping in view the urgent nature
· of the dispute, the appeals and the interlocutory application (s) relating
to the State ofUttar Pradesh in the Writ Petition (C) No.76'of2015 are
taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
4. TwQquestions arise for decision in these cases:
E
(i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the
institutional preference in theAligarh Muslim University (for
short "AMU") and Banaras Hindu University (for short
"BHU'') and further directing that the post-graduate seats in
these institutions shall be filled up only from those students
who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and
Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh;
(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction
that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas
should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical
G Health Services (for short "the PMHS"), who have cleared .
MBBS examination from a college within the State of U.P.
5. The impugned order has been challenged by the appellants,
some of whom are person.;;_who have been admitted in AMU and BHU
and whose admissions are now sought to be cancelled on the basis of
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 291
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

the impugned order. Some of the appeals have been filed by in service A
doctors who have graduated from outside the State of U.P. Appeals
have also been filed by the AMU and the BHU.
6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are thata writ petition being
Writ Petition (C) No. 17183 of 2017 was filed by certain doctors in
which their only claim was that the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the ·B
Medical Council oflndia Post Graduate MedicalEducation Regulations,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2000 Regulations") was only
available to those doctors serving in the Uttar Pradesh PMHS (hereinaf!:er
referred to as "in service doctors"), who had passed their MBBS
examination from a university/institution situate within the State ofUttar
Pradesh. No other issue was raised in this writ petition. C
7. This matter was taken up by the High Court on 15.05.2017 and
in its order dated 15.05.2017, the High Court made reference to various
circulars issued by the State ofUttar Pradesh from time to time and the
Court raised certain queries in this order. Though the High Court in the
writ petition was only concerned with one issue i.e. whether in service D
doctors of PMHS cadre, who had obtained their MBBS degree from
outside the State ofU.P. were entitled to benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of
the 2000 Regulations, the High Court framed a number of questions
pertaining to admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges and
. asked the Chief Secretary to file a reply to the same. The High Court, E ·
without any material before it, also raked up the issue with regard to
admissions to AMU and BHU and raised a query whether students,
who had passed their MBBS/BDS final examination from colleges within
the State ofU.P. were entitled for admission to AMU and BHU on the
basis of their merit in the competitive examination.
F
8. The Chief Secretary filed an affidavit stating that the medical
education is governed by the Medical Council of India (for short "the
MCI''), which is a statutory body set up under the Medical Council of
India Act, 1956. Reference was made to Rule 9(iv) of the 2000
Regulations, which reads as follows:
G
"9. Procedure for Selection of Candidate for Post Graduate
Courses shall be as follows:-
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.

A (iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/Institutions for
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing
in States/Union Territories. An All India merit list as well as
State-wise merit list of eligible candidates shall be prepared
B on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility cum
Entrance Test and candidate shall be admitted to Post Graduate
courses from the said merit list only;
Provided that in determining the merit of candidate who are in
service of Government/Public authority, weightage in th11 marks
c . may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an
incentive@ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service
·in remote and/or difficult areas up to a maximum of30% of the
marks obtained in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test. The
remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by the State
Government/Competent authority from time to time ......... "
D
9. In State ofU.P. & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (8)
SCALE 16, this Court held that Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations
was a complete Code in itself to determine inter se merit of the candidates
and that the State was entitled to make a provision for giving weightage
of marks as incentive to those in service candidates who have worked in
E notified, remote or difficult areas in the State. The challenge in Dinesh
Singh Chauhan's case was to the preference/advantage given by
Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations. This challenge was rejected.
The Chief Secretary in his affidavit clearly stated that all in service
candidates, who have worked in the notified, remote or difficult areas in
F · 1he State were eligible for benefit of Regulation 9(iv) and no distinction
could be made between those in service candidates, who have done
their graduation from within the State ofU .P. or those who had done the
graduation outside the State of U.P. Despite the clear cut stand of the
State, the High Court held that the circulars giving institutional preference
to students of AMU and BHU are contrary to 2000 Regulations. The
G High Court further went on to held that weightage of inarks under Rule
9(iv) was available only to those candidates, who had passed their MBBS
examination from universities/institutions situated within the State ofU .P.
l 0. Admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges is done
on the basis ofNEET. 50% of the seats are filled on merit on all India
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF lNDIA 293
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

basis and 50% of the seats are filled on merit drawn on State-wise A
basis. Within the State merit list there is a provision for providing
weightage to in service doctors as per Regulation 9(iv) to those doctors
who have worked in remote or difficult areas.
11. As far as the first question raised before us is concerned, we
are clearly of the view that the High Court has over-stepped its jurisdiction B
· and went beyond the scope of the writ petition while issuing the direction
relating to AMU and BHU. This issue was admittedly not raised by the
appellants/petitioners. These two universities were not even parties before
the High Court. The selected candidates were not joined as respondents.
Both these universities are central universities. The State Government
had issued a circular on 31.03.2017 clarifying that students, who had C
done their MBBS/BDS final year from AMU and BHU would be entitled
for counselling only in the seats available in their own insti.tutes viz.,
AMU and BHU. It would be pertinent to mention that in the central
universities 100% admissions for MBBS course are based on all India
examination. There is no State quota for seats in central universities like D
.AMU and BHU or other central institutions like All India Institute of
Medical Sciences etc. It is, therefore, apparent that the State can have
no control over the seats in those medical colleges wh.ich are part of the
central universities/institutions. These seats have to be filled up on the
basis of merit and institutional preference could be given to the extent
permissible i.e. 50%, as has been held by a catena of decisions including E
the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh
Chaudri & Ors. v. Union ofindia & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146, wherein
this Court held as follows:
"72. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the opinion that the original scheme as framed in Dr. F
Pradeep Jain v. Union oflndia, (1984) 3 SCC 654 should be
reiterated in preference to Dr. Dinesh Kumar {II) v. Motilal Nehru
Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727. Reservation by way of
institutional preference, therefore, should be confined to 50% of
the seats since it is in public interest. G
xxx

74. AIIMS is an institution of excellence. It is a class by itself and
pride. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in ABMS and the
.. medical colleges of the Central University, merit should have
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.

A primacy subject of course to institutional preference to the extent
of50% of the total seats in the MBBS course. In all other respects
the decision of this Court in AIIMS Students' Union v. AllMS,
(2002) l sec 428 shall operate."
12. The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, which
B had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged by any body
before the High Court. As stated earlier, AMU and BHU were not
parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India were
also not parties before the High Court. The High Court did not take into
consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri
(supra) and other cases upholding institutional preferences in central
C universities. The High Court did not also take into consideration the fact
that the State had no power to control admissions to these universities.
Therefore, as far as the first issue is concerned, we are clearly of the
view that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and the order of the
High Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
D 13. As far as the second issue is concerned, Rule 9(iv) clearly
provides that an incentive at the rate of I0% of the marks for each year
can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served in remote
or difficult areas subject to the condition that the highest incentive will •
be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote and difficult areas is
E vested with the State Government. This power has been upheld by this
Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan 's case (supra). It would be pertinent to
mention that in this case, this Court only upheld this power and held that
Rule 9 (iv) of the 2000 Regulations is a complete Code in itself. This
Court was not dealing with the question as to whether the benefit of
weightage of marks for having served in remote or difficult areas could
F be given only to local in service doctors or to the entire category of in
service doctors.
14. In fact, Rule 9 (iv) itself only provides for weightage being
given for each year, of service rendered in remote and difficult areas.
The purpose behind this rule is that those doctors who willingly served in
G remote and difficult areas should be given some preference while
considering them for admission to post-graduate courses. The intention
is to benefit those who left the comforts of towns and cities and are
willing to work in difficult conditions in remote and difficult areas. The
State ofU .P. had also issued a Circular which inter alia reads as follows:
H
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. y,_~UNION OF INDIA 295
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

"9. Benefit ofWeightage/reservation to Medical Officers belonging A
to PMHS category:
In accordance with the judgment passed by Hon 'ble
Supreme Court and Regulations framed by Medical and Health
Department of the State as per MCI guidelines, the State
Department shall issue no objection certificates to the MBBS B
Degree Holding Doctors belonging to PMHS Cadre for counselling
by giving weightage as per rules and the merit list shall be
accordingly modified and they shall be given admission in the
Government Medical Colleges/Universities/Private Medical
Colleges.
c
The proceedings for the PMHS category Medical Officers
for Government Medical Colleges/Universities shall be taken in
accordance with the Post Graduate Regulation, 2000 and policy
framed vide Govt. Order No. 4197/med-3-l 6-G-179/2005 dated
23.12.2016 issued by Medical Department."
D
15. The aforesaid circular clearly mentions that benefit of Rule
9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations shall be available to medical officers
belonging to PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas.
No distinction has been made between those who have graduated from
within the State ofU.P. or those who have graduated from outside the
State of U.P. Once the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified E
their MBBS/BDS examination from within the State of U.P. or from
any other part of the country, are selected and join the medical health
service in the State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e. PMHS.
Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or difficult areas
they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the basis as to which
F
State they have done their graduation from. We, therefore, see no reason
as to why the benefit ofweightage in terms of Regulation 9(iv) should
be limited to those in service candidates of the PMHS category, who
have graduated from within the State ofU.P. This is a totally artificial
distinction drawn up by the High Court. In fact, the State of U.P. had
also not made any such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary G
was categorical that the 2000 Regulations had not created such a divide
or distinction. In this regard, we may make reference to the following
portion of the affidavit of the Chief Secretary:
"14. That since the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity
of Regulation 9 and has categorized it as a complete code and a H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 7] 4 S.C.R.

A provision for determining inte'r-se merit and grant of weightage to
in-service candidates who have worked in notified, remote or
difficult areas in the state, and there is nothing in the Post Graduate
Medical Education Regulations 2000 to create a divide or a
distinction between such of the in-house candidates who may have
done their graduation from outside the State, therefore, no such
B
divide is created at the level of the Director General Medical and
Health while considering the cases of in-house candidates and
giving weightage to them and thereafter recommending the name
to the Direcfor General Medical Education for counselling."
16. We, therefore, hold that the High Court erred in deciding that
c only those in service doctors who had cleared their MBBS examination
from within the State of U.P., were only entitled to the benefit of
Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations.
17. We are also of the view that not only the High Court
transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the writ petition
D but by the impugned order set at naught the entire selection process only
two days before the last datsi ofadmissions making it vi1tually impossible
to comply with the direction of the High Comt within the sho1t period of
two days.
18. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order dated
E "29.05.20 l 7 passed by the High Court and all directions issued by it. We
also set aside all consequential ~ction taken by the State ofU .P. or any
other authority or institution pursttant to the directions of the High Court.
19. The State ofUttar Pradesh has filed I.A. No. 45327 of20 l 7
in Writ Petition (C) No.76of2015 praying for extension of the last date
F of admission as laid dewn in Ashish Ranjan v. Union oflndia & Ors.,
(2016) I l SCC 22.5 for a period of one month to comply with the directions
issued by the High Court. Since we have set aside the judgment of the
High Court,. there is no need to re-draw the merit list.
20. The learned counsel for the AMU has urged that the time for
G filling up the seats be extended since on account of the confusion created
by the order of the High Court a large number of seats are sti II lying
vacant in the AMU. Similar request has also been made by the learned
counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh on behalf of the Government run
medical colleges/institutions. ln view of the order dated 18.01.20 l 6
H passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 76 of 20 l 5 and connected
DR. SAURABH DWIVED! AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 297
AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

matters titled Ashish Ranjan v. Union ofindia & Ors:, (2016) 11 SCC A
225, normally we would be reluctant to extend the time. However, the
present case has some peculiar facts of its own. The High Coutt has,
on a totally erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the
counselling on 29th May, 2017 which would have resulted in fresh
counselling and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30'h or
8
31" May, 2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have
taken only 2 days' time, would now require a minimum of5 or 6 days'
time because action will have to be taken afresh.
21. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment
and order of the High Court and all consequential action taken by the
State of U .P. and/or any other authority pursuant to that order. It is C
clarified that those who were counselled and granted admission prior to
the impugned judgement of the High Court shall be permitted to continue
in their respective courses. The time for filling up the vacant seats, if
any, in AMU, BHU and Government run medical colleges/institutions in
the State ofU.P. is extended up to 12'11 June, 2017 in the peculiar facts D
and circumstances of the case. We further permit the AMU, BHU and
Government run medical colleges/institutions in the State to fill up the
seats in the post graduate courses in the AMU, BHU and Government
run medical colleges/institutions up to 12.06.2017.
All the civil appeals as well as the interlocutory application(s) E
relating to the State ofUttar Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 76of2015
are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any,
also stand(s) disposed of.

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.