G H ANITTA JOB & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

326                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    5 S.C.R. 326              [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A                            ANITTA JOB & ORS.
                                       v.
                     THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2018)
B                               APRIL 20, 2018
               [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
             Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – MBBS
      course – As per High Court’s order, application for admission to be
      made online – Appellants-candidates’s case was that although they
C
      obtained the demand drafts pertaining to fee for admission prior to
      the last date for application, but their online application could not
      be submitted due to some snag in the website of the Malabar Medical
      College – Name of appellants did not appear in the list of eligible
      candidates – Complaints by Appellants-candidates – Admission
D     Supervisory Committee (ASC) took cognizance of complaints on
      22.9.2016 and noted the stand of the college that their names shall
      be included in the list of eligible candidates – Notice issued by
      college accepting the same with condition that candidates shall
      submit proof of unsuccessful attempts for registration and with
      demand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date – The college
E
      had earlier made attempts for admission in the management/NRI
      quota but seats could not be filled up –Admissions of all appellants
      in the college – Eight seats belonging to Management/NRI quota
      were surrendered to the Government – On 4.3.2017, ASC withheld
      the admissions of seventy eight candidates under Management quota
F     and eight candidates under NRI quota made by college – ASC
      rejected the case of four of the candidates who were admitted in the
      college in Management quota on the ground that their names were
      outside the list published by the Medical college and with regard to
      six appellants who were admitted under NRI quota, their admission
      were disapproved as they were not included in any of the online
G
      application lists submitted by the Medical college – Writ petition –
      Interim order passed permitting appellants to appear in first year
      MBBS examination – Writ petition dismissed – On appeal, this court
      ordered interim order to operate and finally held: The present case
      is not a case where the appellants did not appear in the NEET
H
                                       326
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                        327


examination or they were granted admission disregarding the merits        A
of other candidates in NEET – No details of any candidate who
secured higher rank or merit to the appellants and was not given
admission in the College was brought on record – It may be true
that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly permit
the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made their
                                                                          B
unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being
included in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the
College having given such opportunity to others in addition to seven
candidates who had complained to the ASC, such action of the
College cannot be termed the mala fide or with oblique motive
especially when similarly situated candidates were included in the        C
list of eligible candidates – High Court had not given due
consideration to the important condition which was put by the
College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come,
claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration
and come up with proof to show that they had prepared demand
                                                                          D
draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission –
This safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought
of admission in the College prior to last date of admission – It is not
disputed that the appellants had proof of demand drafts in the name
of College which were prior to the last date of admission – In the
facts of the case where admission was also notified by the University     E
and the ASC for the first time disapproved their admissions only on
3.6.2016 and further the appellants were also permitted to appear
in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this
distance of time, the appellants cannot be thrown out of the College
on account of the shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the
                                                                          F
High Court – The order of the High Court and the ASC is set aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The order dated 22.09.2016 has to be treated as
passed by the ASC in exercise of its statutory power. It is true
that in the order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear direction          G
that names of other candidates who have not even submitted
complaints should be included or any fresh applications be invited
but College taking guidance from the aforesaid order issued the
notice extending the similar protection to all the candidates who
come with their unsuccessful attempts for registration but with
                                                                          H
328            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     the rider that they should come up along with demand drafts taken
      before the scheduled cut off date. The requirement of demand
      draft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an important
      factor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought of
      making an application in the College to come up with their
      applications with any fresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016
B
      clearly prohibited all the candidates who had not taken demand
      draft prior to 09.09.2016 which was the last date of admission. In
      the present case, College had filed details of demand drafts of
      the appellants and it was not disputed that they submitted their
      applications with demand drafts taken before the last date of
C     application. The High Court took a view that since they have not
      made on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016, they were not
      entitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-line
      application was a condition which having not been fulfilled, their
      applications were disapproved by the ASC and the High Court
      has also come to the conclusion that their applications were made
D
      after 09.09.2016 and they were admitted in the College on
      28.09.2016. There cannot be any dispute that as per procedure
      prescribed and the interim order of the High Court dated
      26.08.2016 students were to submit admission applications to
      the respective Colleges on-line and the admissions were to be
E     taken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination. [Para 21]
      [338-B-G]
            2. The respondents could not point out any such details of
      any candidate who was included in the list published by the
      College and who had higher NEET rank to the appellants and
F     has raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is also on the
      record that in fact after admission made in the Management quota
      and NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which were
      surrendered to the Government by the College. Details of names
      of eight candidates, invited for spot admission against the still
      vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted. After
G     receiving the applications from appellants and after being satisfied
      that they had demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 and had made
      unsuccessful attempts for their registration the College published
      their names on 27.09.2016. The ASC which is entrusted to
      supervise and guide entire admission process having issued the
H     order dated 22.09.2016 asking the College to include the names
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                     329


of 7 candidates whose names were not earlier included, the             A
College extended the said benefit and the facility to other
candidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts for
registration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled
cut off date of admission. [Paras 22, 23] [338-H; 339-A-E]
      3. The High Court had not given due consideration to the         B
important condition which was put by the College in the notice
dated 23.09.2016 that candidates who come, claiming that they
made unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration and come up
with proof to show that they had prepared demand draft of fee
which was of prior date to the last date of admission. The above
safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought of        C
admission in the College prior to last date of admission. [Para
26] [342-B-C]
       5. It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demand
drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of
admission. In the facts of the present case where admission was        D
also notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the
first time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and
further the appellants were also permitted to appear in the
examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this
distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellants out      E
of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed
by the ASC and the High Court. [Para 27] [342-C-E]
      Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India and others (2017)
      3 SCC 652 : [2017] 1 SCR 559 – distinguished.
      Sankalp Charitable Trust and another v. Union of India           F
      and others (2016) 7 SCC 487; Christian Medical
      College, Vellore and others v. Union of India and others
      (2014) 2 SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 – referred to
                      Case Law Reference
                                                                       G
(2016) 7 SCC 487               referred to             Para 2
[2017] 1 SCR 559               distinguished           Para 24
[2013] 7 SCR 908               referred to             Para 25

                                                                       H
330            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3874
      of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 of the High Court
      of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (Civil) No.24133/2017.
           Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Zulfiker Ali P.S., Faisal M. Aboobaker,
B     Ms. Lakshmi Sree Puthenpurackal, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Pallav Shishodia, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., C.K. Sasi,
      Ms. Nayantara Roy, Manukrishnan, G., Venkita Subramoniam T.R.,
      P. Sreekumar, Santosh Krishnan, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Rajiv Ranjan
      Dwivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.
C
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. The appellants, ten in numbers, have
      filed this appeal against the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court
      of Kerala dated 04.01.2018 by which their writ petition challenging the
D     order of Admission Supervisory Committee dated 03.06.2017 has been
      dismissed.
             2. The brief facts of the case which need to be noted for deciding
      this appeal are:
              The Malabar Medical College and Research Centre has
E     sanctioned intake capacity of 150 students in MBBS Course. With effect
      from 2016-2017 admission in MBBS Course was to be conducted on
      the basis of NEET examination. This Court vide its order dated
      06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust and another vs. Union of
      India and others, (2016) 7 SCC 487, has directed that no examination
      shall be permitted to be held for admission to MBBS or BDS studies by
F
      any private college or association or any private/deemed university. All
      admissions in the MBBS Course were to be done on the basis of National
      Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). All the appellants appeared in
      the NEET examination and declared qualified with their respective ranks.
      The State of Kerala has issued various Government orders pertaining to
G     admission procedure in Government/Management/NRI seats in the
      private/self-financing Colleges. As per the orders issued by the
      Government of Kerala, the Commissioner of Entrance Examination shall
      make allotment for MBBS in the Government Management/NRI seats
      in all private/self-financing Colleges.
H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                            331
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        3. The Writ petitions were filed by different Medical Colleges        A
challenging the Government Orders. The Kerala High Court in a bunch
of writ petitions, leading writ petition being No.28041 of 2016 on
26.08.2016 stayed the orders issued by the State of Kerala with certain
directions pertaining to admission in MBBS/BDS Courses. The Malabar
Medical College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) submitted a
                                                                              B
prospectus to the Admission Supervisory Committee (hereafter referred
to as the ‘ASC’) and got it approved on 06.09.2016. As per the order
passed by the Kerala High Court dated 26.08.2016 and as per procedure
laid down by the ASC, the applications for admissions were to be made
on-line. Last date for submitting application on-line for admission was
09.09.2016. The respective Colleges were also directed to publish the         C
list of applications received on-line so as to enable the ASC to supervise
and guide the entire admission process.
       4. The appellants’ case is that although they obtained the demand
drafts from banks pertaining to the fee for admission prior to 09.09.2016,
but their on-line applications could not be submitted due to some snag in     D
the website of the College. On 13.09.2016 College published a list of
1335 candidates in which the names of the appellants were not there.
Certain other candidates whose names were not included in the list filed
complaints before the ASC. The ASC taking cognizance of the complaints
issued an order on 22.09.2016 noticing the stand of the College that their
names shall be included in the list of eligible candidates. After receiving   E
the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016 a notice was also issued by the
College on their website on 23.09.2016.
       5. The notice dated 23.09.2016 represented to the students that
applications from all those with proof of (i) their unsuccessful attempts
for registration and (ii) with demand draft taken before the scheduled        F
cut off date, shall be accepted by the College. The appellants in pursuance
of the notice 23.09.2016 by the College submitted their applications along
with proof that the demand drafts were taken before the scheduled cut
off date. Supplementary list of 33 eligible students was published by the
College on 27.09.2016 in which names of all the appellants were included.     G
The College had earlier made two attempts for admission in the
Management quota/NRI quota but seats could not be filled up.
      6. On 28.09.2016, the appellants were admitted by the College
and on 30.09.2016, the list of 142 students including the names of the
                                                                              H
332            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     appellants were registered with the Kerala University of Health Sciences.
      Eight seats belonging to Management/NRI quota which remained unfilled
      were surrendered to the Government and on the basis of order dated
      05.10.2016, 8 candidates were forwarded to the College by the
      Commissioner of Entrance Examination which were also admitted by
      the College. After their admissions, the appellants started attending their
B
      classes, the details of admissions taken by the College of Management/
      NRI quota was forwarded to ASC. The ASC by order dated 04.03.2017
      withheld the admissions of 78 candidates under Management quota and
      8 candidates under NRI quota made by the College. On 05.10.2016, the
      Management had already forwarded the details of all the admissions
C     including the admissions of the appellants to the ASC. The ASC by order
      dated 03.06.2017 rejected the case of four of the candidates who had
      admitted in the College in the Management quota on the ground that
      their names are outside the list published by the Medical College and
      with regard to six appellants who are admitted under NRI quota, their
      admissions were disapproved as they have not included in any of the on-
D
      line application lists submitted by the Medical College.
            7. Then aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2017, appellants filed
      Writ Petition (C) No.24133 of 2017 in which an interim order was passed
      on 27.07.2017 permitting the appellants to appear in the First Year MBBS
      Examination. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the Division
E     Bench of Kerala High Court vide its judgment dated 04.01.2018 against
      which this appeal has been filed.
             8. This Court while entertaining the appeal on 16.02.2018 directed
      that in the meantime, interim order that was passed during the pendency
      of the writ proceedings before the High Court shall operate.
F
            9. We have heard Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel
      for the appellants and Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel
      appearing for the Admission Supervisory Committee. We have also heard
      learned counsel for the State of Kerala, the Kerala University of Health
      Sciences as well as Principal of Malabar Medical College.
G
            10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants
      were admitted by the College in accordance with procedure prescribed
      and directions issued by the ASC. It is submitted that although the
      appellants were unsuccessful in making on-line application before the
      cut off date, i.e., 09.09.2016 but when the notice was published on
H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                              333
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

23.09.2016 permitting all applicants who could not successfully submit          A
on-line applications along with demand draft prior to cut off date, they
submitted their applications in pursuance of the notice and were granted
admission on 28.09.2016. He submits that cut off date fixed by the
Medical Council of India and as approved by this Court is 30.09.2016
and admissions of the appellants having been taken prior to cut off date,
                                                                                B
there was no illegality. He further submits that admissions of the appellants
were made according to their ranks in NEET and no complaint had been
made by any candidate or any other person against the admissions of
the appellants. No candidate having any higher rank in the NEET has
come up before ASC or before any Court alleging that he applied for
admission in the College and had higher rank to the appellants. The             C
admission of the appellants being on the basis of NEET merits ought not
to have been interfered by the ASC.
       11. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-ASC submits that only method for making application for
admission to a College was on-line, the date published for submitting on-       D
line applications was 09.09.2016 and admittedly the appellants had not
submitted their applications prior to 09.09.2016 and their names were
also not included in the list which was published by the College of the
eligible candidates, they were clearly not entitled for admission and ASC
had rightly disapproved their admissions. It is further submitted that order
dated 22.09.2016 issued by the ASC could not have been availed by the           E
College to permit the College to entertain applications of others apart
from the candidates who had made complaints regarding their on-line
applications. The College could not have entertained the appellants’
applications.
       12. Learned counsel for the University as well as learned counsel        F
for the State of Kerala have also adopted the arguments made by Shri
Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the ASC. Learned counsel for
the Principal supported the case of the appellants and submitted that
admissions of the appellants were properly made on the basis of their
NEET ranking.                                                                   G
       13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.
      14. We have already noticed above that Kerala High Court has
passed interim order on 26.08.2016 under which the High Court issued
                                                                                H
334            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     certain directions regarding admission in MBBS/BDS Courses 2016-
      2017. Paragraph 9 of the judgment which is relevant in this context is as
      follows:
            “9. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay of operation
            and implementation of the impugned orders, G.O.(Rt) No.
B           2314/2016/H&FWD dated 20.08.2016 and G.O.(Rt) No. 2336/
            2016/ H&FWD dated 23.08.2016, subject to the following
            conditions:-
            (i) Admissions to the MBBS/BDS courses shall be only on the
                basis of the ranking of candidates in the rank list of NEET,
C               2016, on the basis of the inter-se merit among the
                candidates, who have applied to the respective colleges.
            (ii) All the colleges agree that, the applications for admission
                 are received only through on-line and that, the said
                 process provides transparency with regard to the merit
D                as well as the identities of the applicants. Such
                 applications shall therefore be uploaded for the scrutiny
                 of the Admission Supervisory Committee also immediately
                 on the expiry of the last date for submission of
                 applications.

E           (iii) Since the counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee
                  has voiced a complaint that some of the colleges have
                  not obtained approval of the Admission Supervisory
                  Committee, for their Prospectus, the admission process
                  shall be proceeded with only on the basis of a Prospectus,
                  for which approval of the Admission Supervisory
F                 Committee has been obtained.
            (iv) The Admission Supervisory committee is directed to either
                 approve or disapprove the Prospectus, submitted to them
                 for approval, within three days of such submission.”
            15. It is relevant that against the interim order of the Kerala High
G
      Court dated 26.08.2016, Union of India has filed an SLP which was
      disposed of by this Court on 28.09.2016 in C.A.No.9862 of 2016. This
      Court set aside only that part of Condition No.1 wherein the respective
      Colleges are allowed to conduct the counseling and admit the students

H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                              335
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

without going into the merits. This Court, however, specifically observed       A
that this Court is not interfering with the admissions of students which
have been done by the respective Colleges as those were done after
reaching arrangement with the State Government. Last two paragraphs
of this Court’s order dated 28.09.2016 are as follows:
           “Having regard to the aforesaid facts as stated by the               B
      learned Solicitor General as well as the counsel for the
      respondents, we set aside that part of Condition No.1 wherein
      the respective colleges are allowed to conduct the counseling
      and admit the students without going into the merits.
           This issue shall be finally thrashed out and decided by              C
      the High Court in the writ petitions which are pending before
      it. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the admissions
      of students which have been done by the respective colleges
      as these are done after reaching arrangement with the State
      Government. In that behalf, the conditions which are
      mentioned in the impugned order shall continue to apply.                  D

            The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
       16. The admission of the appellants admittedly was completed on
28.09.2016 as per the interim order of Kerala High Court dated
28.09.2016. We thus have to consider the admissions as per the directions       E
of the Kerala High Court and the directives of the ASC as applicable on
the relevant date.
      17. There cannot be any dispute with the procedure which was
prescribed for admissions in MBBS Course, students were to make
applications on-line and last date for making such applications was             F
09.09.2016. There is also no dispute that appellants could not succeed in
making any on-line application prior to 09.09.2016 although they claim to
have prepared a demand draft before the last date of admission.
       18. In the admission list which was published on 13.09.2016 by
the College of all eligible candidates the names of appellants were not
                                                                                G
included. It has come on the record that appellants made applications to
the College only after publication of notice by the College on 23.09.2016
in pursuance of order dated 22.09.2016 issued by the ASC. The ASC
has issued order dated 22.09.2016 on complaints received by 7 candidates
alleging that their names were not included in the published list of eligible
                                                                                H
336            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     candidates of Medical College. The ASC issued the following order dated
      22.09.2016:
                                      “ORDER
            Complaints have been received from seven complainants
            alleging that their names are not included in the Published
B           eligible lists of Malabar Medical College, in short the Medical
            College.
            2. When the matter was taken up, Advocate Devaprasad, was
            present and representing the Medical College. The details of
            above seven complainants were handed over to him. He
C           submitted, after contacting the Medical College, that on
            receiving the details of these seven students, the Medical
            College would list them also along with the already published
            eligible list of the applicants.
            3. Alan Philips did not give any application details or other
D           particulars. Hence, he had been directed to furnish all the
            details to the Medical College, so that his name will also be
            considered by the College.
            4. The Medical College is directed to publish Management
            and NRI quota lists separately with NEET rank so as to enable
E           the applicants to know their rank and position. The rejected
            list, if any, should also be published.
            5. The Medical College shall adhere to the Directives issued
            by the ASC, particularly the Directives dated 19.09.2016.
            6. Email this order to the Principal of the Malabar Medical
F
            College, and add to the website of the ASC for the information
            of all the complainants, as no separate communication is
            addressed to them from the ASC office.
            Dated on this the 22nd day of September 2016.
G                                                                      Sd/-
                                                                 CHAIRMAN”
             19. After the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016, the College has
      issued notice in its website on 23.09.2016, last paragraph of the notice is
      as follows:
H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                           337
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            “As directed by the (illegible) Admission Supervisory            A
      Engineer, we undertake to accept all such applications
      received in the college office with the (illegible) of their
      unsuccessful attempts for registration alongwith DD taken
      before the scheduled cut off date. These applications will be
      (illegible) to vacant seats.”
                                                                             B
       20. The ASC has been constituted in the State of Kerala in
pursuance of a State enactment, namely, the Kerala Professional Colleges
or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission,
Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity
and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006. Under the Act,
ASC is to supervise and guide the entire process of admission of students    C
to unaided professional colleges or institutions. Sub-sections (6) and (7)
of Section 4 are as follows:
        “Section 4. Admission Supervisory Committee.-
                (1)      xxx         xxx           xxx                       D
      (6) The Admission Supervisory Committee shall supervise and
      guide the entire process of admission of students to the
      unaided professional colleges or institutions with a view to
      ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and
      non-exploitative under the provisions of this Act.                     E
           (7)The Admission Supervisory Committee may hear
      complaints with regard to admission in contravention of the
      provisions contained herein. If the Admission Supervisory
      Committee after enquiry finds that there has been any violation
      of the provisions for admission on the part of the unaided             F
      professional colleges or institutions, it shall make appropriate
      recommendation to the Government for imposing a fine upto
      rupees ten lakhs and the Government may on receipt of such
      recommendation, fix the fine and collect the same in the case
      of each such violation or any other course of action as it
      deems fit and the amount so fixed together with interest thereon       G
      shall be recovered as if it were an arrear of public revenue
      due on land. The Admission Supervisory Committee may also
      declare admission made in respect of any or all seats in a
      particular college or institution to be de-hors merit and
      therefore invalid and communicate the same to the concerned
                                                                             H
338            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           University. On the receipt of such communication, the
            University shall debar such candidates from appearing for
            any further examination and cancel the results of examinations
            already appeared for.”
             21. The order dated 22.09.2016 has to be treated as passed by
B     the ASC in exercise of the abovesaid statutory power. It is true that in
      the order dated 22.09.2016, there was no clear direction that names of
      other candidates who have not even submitted complaints should be
      included or any fresh applications be invited but College taking guidance
      from the aforesaid order issued the notice extending the similar protection
      to all the candidates who come with their unsuccessful attempts for
C     registration but with the rider that they should come up along with demand
      drafts taken before the scheduled cut off date. The requirement of
      demand draft taken before the scheduled cut off date was an important
      factor which prohibited the candidates who had never thought of making
      an application in the College to come up with their applications with any
D     fresh demand draft. Notice dated 23.09.2016 clearly prohibited all the
      candidates who had not taken demand draft prior to 09.09.2016 which
      was the last date of admission. In the present case College had filed
      details of demand drafts of the appellants and it was not disputed that
      they submitted their applications with demand drafts taken before the
      last date of application. The High Court has taken a view that since they
E     have not made on-line applications prior to 09.09.2016 they were not
      entitled for admission and requirement of submitting on-line application
      was a condition which having not been fulfilled, their applications were
      disapproved by the ASC and the High Court has also come to the
      conclusion that their applications were made after 09.09.2016 and they
F     were admitted in the College on 28.09.2016. There cannot be any dispute
      that as per procedure prescribed and the interim order of the Kerala
      High Court dated 26.08.2016 students were to submit admission
      applications to the respective Colleges on-line and the admissions were
      to be taken on merit as reflected in the NEET examination.
G           22. During the course of hearing we had repeatedly asked learned
      counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether any candidate having
      merit higher to the appellants in the NEET examination, has submitted
      any complaint or made any protest to any authority complaining that he
      had made application to the College having secured higher rank to the
      appellants and has been denied the admission. The respondents could
H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                            339
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

not point out any such details of any candidate who was included in the       A
list published by the College and who had higher NEET rank to the
appellants and has raised grievance regarding non-admission. It is also
on the record that in fact after admission made in the Management
quota and NRI quota still 8 seats were not filled up which were
surrendered to the Government by the College.
                                                                              B
       23. Details of names of eight candidates, invited for spot admission
against the still vacant seats, forwarded to the College were admitted on
07.10.2016 (within the date as extended). The details of 8 candidates
who were admitted on the basis of the allotment made by the Government
is found at Annexure P-7 and on perusal of the names along with their
NEET rank, the inter se ranks of the candidates which were admitted           C
subsequent to the appellants clearly indicate that four candidates are
lower in the NEET rank to the appellants. After receiving the applications
from appellants and after being satisfied that they had demand draft
prior to 09.09.2016 and had made unsuccessful attempts for their
registration the College published their names on 27.09.2016 which list       D
is also on the record. The ASC which is entrusted to supervise and guide
entire admission process having issued the order dated 22.09.2016 asking
the College to include the names of 7 candidates whose names were not
earlier included, the College extended the said benefit and the facility to
other candidates who come with proof of unsuccessful attempts for
registration along with demand drafts taken before the scheduled cut off      E
date of admission. We are unable to see any mala fide or any oblique
motive in publishing notice dated 23.09.2016 by the College. They
received order for inclusion of 7 such candidates whose names were
included in the list and extended the same benefits to other similarly
situated.                                                                     F
      24. The High Court has referred to the judgment of this Court in
Rishabh Choudhary vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC
652. The High Court has relied on paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment
which are to the following effect:
      “15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed          G
      for the present state of affairs—whether it is the students or
      the College or the State of Chhattisgarh. The question is really
      whether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our opinion,
      the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The College
                                                                              H
340            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           and the State of Chhattisgarh have not adhered to the law
            with the result that the petitioner became a victim of
            circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against
            the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim of
            their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is
            unfortunate but it cannot be helped.
B
            16. We were told during the course of submissions that some
            similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified
            in the examination. Those students like the petitioner who did
            not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the
            College and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that
C           gamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our sympathies
            may be with the petitioner and similarly placed students, we
            cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this Court from
            time to time, only for their benefit.”
             25. The case of Rishabh Choudhary (supra) was a case of
D     candidate who was admitted by the College in the year 2016-2017 in
      MBBS Course on the basis of examination conducted by the College.
      This Court noticed in the aforesaid judgment that this Court having already
      passed an order dated 11.04.2016 recalling the judgment of this Court
      dated 18.07.2013 in Christian Medical College, Vellore and others
E     vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 305, the notification
      issued by the Medical Council of India on 21.12.2010 reviewed that the
      examination was to be conducted by NEET. This Court in Rishabh
      Choudhary case (supra) has also noticed the order of this Court dated
      06.05.2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra) where this Court has
      directed that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admission
F     to MBBS or BDS studies by any private college. In paragraphs 9 to 12
      following was held:
            “9. By an order dated 6-5-2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust,
            it was made clear that no examination shall be permitted to
            be held for admission for MBBS studies by any private college
G           or association or any private/deemed university.
            10. Subsequently on 9-5-2016 this Court declined to modify
            the order dated 28-4-2016. An order was also passed making
            it clear that all such candidates who could not appear in
            NEET I and those who had appeared but had an apprehension
H
   ANITTA JOB & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                           341
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      that they had not prepared well, would be permitted to appear          A
      in NEET II subject to an option from these candidates to give
      up their candidature for NEET I. It was further clarified that
      only NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBS
      studies.”
      11. In view of all these orders passed by this Court from time         B
      to time, it is more than abundantly clear that the Notification
      dated 21-12-2010 stood resurrected and that admissions to
      the MBBS course could only be through NEET I and NEET II.
      No other process of admission was permissible. Given this
      background, the Director of Medical Education in
      Chhattisgarh wrote to the College on or about 13-7-2016 to             C
      take steps to cancel all the admissions made by the College in
      terms of the examination CGMAT-2016 held for students for
      the management quota and NRI quota. Eventually by a Letter
      dated 28-7-2016 the Director of Medical Education in
      Chhattisgarh recommended to the College to cancel                      D
      admissions made to the MBBS course. This prompted the
      petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court.
      12. It is submitted and prayed by the petitioner that since he
      had already been granted admission by the College after the
      examination CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College and                E
      supervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and
      in which there were no allegations of impropriety, his
      admission should not be disturbed. It is submitted that the
      petitioner was certainly not at fault and there is no reason
      why he should be the victim of an apparent wrong committed
      by the College as also by the State of Chhattisgarh.”                  F

      26. The observations were made in paragraphs 15 and 16 in the
background of facts in that case. Present is not a case where the
appellants did not appear in the NEET examination or they were granted
admission disregarding the merits of other candidates in NEET. No details
of any candidate who secured higher rank or merit to the appellants and      G
was not given admission in the College has been brought to our notice. It
may be true that the order of the ASC dated 22.09.2016 did not expressly
permit the College to invite all the candidates who had earlier made their
unsuccessful attempts for on-line registration to come up for being
                                                                             H
342              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     included in the list of eligible candidates of the College but the College
      having given such opportunity to others in addition to 7 candidates who
      had complained to the ASC, such action of the College cannot be termed
      the mala fide or with oblique motive especially when similarly situated
      candidates were included in the list of eligible candidates. The High
      Court had not given due consideration to the important condition which
B
      was put by the College in the notice dated 23.09.2016 that candidates
      who come, claiming that they made unsuccessful attempts for on-line
      registration and come up with proof to show that they had prepared
      demand draft of fee which was of prior date to the last date of admission.
      The above safeguard was enough to ward of applicants who never thought
C     of admission in the College prior to last date of admission.
              27. It is not disputed that the appellants had proof of demand
      drafts in the name of College which were prior to the last date of admission.
      In the facts of the present case where admission was also notified by
      the University on 30.09.2016 and the ASC for the first time disapproved
D     their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the appellants were also
      permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High
      Court, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellants
      out of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed by
      the ASC and the High Court.
E            28. In the result, we set aside the order of the High Court as well
      as the order of the Admission Supervisory Committee. The appeal is
      allowed.


      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.
F




G




H