Holding

The Scheme is not a statute and does not confer enforceable rights; therefore, no third round of counselling can be ordered and vacant seats cannot be filled beyond the prescribed two rounds.

Summary

The petitioners, Ms. Neelu Arora and others, sought a third round of counselling for MBBS/BDS seats under the 15% All‑India quota, arguing that many seats remained vacant after the first two rounds and that candidates might vacate allotted seats for preferred state‑quota seats. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Sharwan Kumar's case is not a statute and does not create enforceable rights, and that the prescribed two rounds of counselling are the only mechanism for seat allocation. The Court examined whether the Scheme could be altered to accommodate a third counselling round and whether vacant seats could be filled mid‑session. It held that the Scheme, being a judicially framed procedural order, cannot be read as a statute conferring inexorable rights, and that allowing a third round would defeat the purpose of achieving broad‑based equality. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the interlocutory applications, refusing to modify the Scheme or order additional counselling.

Issues considered

Can the Scheme for 15% All‑India quota admissions be modified to permit a third round of counselling?
Do vacant seats under the Scheme give rise to enforceable rights for candidates?
Is mid‑session admission of medical seats permissible under the Scheme and applicable statutes?

Subjects

All‑India quotamedical educationcounselling roundsreservation policyjudicial schemeArticle 32equality clauseseat allocation

Judgment

!·

A MS. NEELU ARORA AND ANR.
v. ~

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ~

JANUARY 24, 2002

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.
VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.]

-+
Education:
c MBBSIBDS Courses-Admission ta--Under 15% All-India quota-
Scheme framed in Shrawan Kumar's case providing for two rounds of
counselling-Modification of Scheme sought in order to provide third round
ofcounselling -Held, Scheme framed by C-urt not to be read as a Statute- x
No inexorable rights conferred upon parties-Scheme has been framed to
achieve a broad based equality-There is no scope for a third round of
D ~ounselling under the scheme.

In Shrawan Kumar's case*, the Supreme Court framed a scheme for
admission to MBBS/BDS Courses under 15% All-India quota in various
Colleges in the country. The Scheme provided for the last date of receipt
of the vacancy position as September of each year and two rounds of ~
E counselling to be taken during the period prescribed therein. As per clause
14 of the scheme, If the Dean of the principal of any college does not notify
the vacancy position due to non-joining of candidates in the first round
of counselling before the date indicated therein, the seats alloted to such
college will be treated as vacant and allotment of candidates will be made
F against these deemed vacant seats and it shall be the responsibility of the
Dean or the Principal of the College concerned to give adrr.ission the those -1--
students.

Some of the candidates filed the writ petition and some others filed
an. interlocutory application in another writ petition seeking modification
G of the Scheme. It was stated that the candidates who were allotted seats I

pi
under the All-India quota may not have been given the course or college
or place of their choice and in case later when they get allotment of their jjl!I
choice under the State quota, they will ·vaca~e the seats allotted to them -~
under tlie All-India quota and in the process some more seats would fall
vacant under the All-India quota. It was, therefore, submitted that a third
H 562
NEELU ARORA v. \1.0.1. 563

round of counselling may be permitted to be held for such vacant seats A
--;-· and the vacancies under 15% All-India quota should not be allowed to
revert back to States. It was also stated that some of the States/Colleges
did not intimate the vacancy position.

Dismissing the writ petition and the interlocutory application, the
Court B
HELD: 1.1. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders
of the Court prescribing also the manner in which it has to be. worked
out, if in a particular year there is any short fall or certain number of
seats are not filled up, the same can not be done by adopting one more C
round of counselling because there is no scope for a third round of
counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering
the scheme as and when seats are found vacant. What is to be borne in
mind is that broad equality is to be achieved and not that it should result
in any mathematical exactitude. (566-C, DJ
D
*Sharwan Kumar, etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services &
Anr. etc. etc., (1993) 3 SCC 332, explained.

1.2. The primary consideration in formulating the Scheme for
creating a reservation in favour of candidates is broadly based on national
approach as against the State based reservation. The Schemes framed E
by the Court should not be read as if they are Statues or that inexorable
rights are conferred upon the parties. Moreover, there is no scope for
admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of
statutes governing medical education. Even if some seats are unfilled that
cannot be a ground for making mid-session admission and there cannot F
be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the
subsequent year. (565-B, C; 566-F, GI

Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc.
(1984( 3 SCC 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. .v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College & Ors., (19861 3 SCC 727 and Medical Council of India v. Madhu G
Singh & Ors., (20021 7 SCC 258, relied on.

-" Sharwan Kumar etc. etc. v. Director Generafof Health Services & Anr.
etc. etc., (19931 3 sec 332, reiterated.

CIVIL APPEq.A TE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No. H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) I S.C.R.

A 40712001.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) .

WITH

B I.A. No. 14 in W.P. No 443/92

P.P. Malhotra, P.H. Parekh, R. Jawahar Lal, Ms. Shakum, Vinod Shukla,
for M.C. Dhingra, Altaf Ahmed, ASG. Ms. Sunita Shanna, D.S. Mabra,
Rudreshwar Singh, Prakash Srivastava, Tara Chand Sharma, Ajay Shanna,
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Krishna Sanna, Ms. Asha
C G. Nair, V.K. Sidaharan, J.R. Juwang, Ashok Sriv£::.tava, J.P. Dhanda, 8.8.
Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Kh. Nobin Singh, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna
Mathur,. Anurag D. Mathur, Anurag D. Mathur, Ramesh Babu M.R., K.L.
Janjani, R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma, Pankay Kumar Singh, Bhavanishakar
V. Gadnis, Ms. Smita Inna, Ms. Divya Suri, H.A. Raichura Navin Prakash,
D Rahul Singh, Anil Srivastava, Anil Suhrawardy, B.S, Banthia, Ms. Anu
Sawhney, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, V.G. Pragasam, Sanjay. R. Hegde, Javed
Mahmud Rao, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Naresh K. Sharma, C.V ..Subba Rao,
Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Guntur Prabhakar, Sushi! Kumar Jain,
(NP) and Radha Shyam Jena, for the appearing parties.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The petitions are offshoot of a Scheme framed
_by this Court in Sharwan Kumar etc. etc. v. Director General of Health
. Service & Anr. etc. etc., [1993] 3 sec 332 prescribing the procedure to
complete the process of allotment of IS per cent All-India quota for admission
F . to MBBS/BDS courses in various colleges in the country by September each
year. The said Scheme was modified pursuant to an order made iii I.A.No. I 0 .
of 2000 in WP(C) No. 443 of 1992 the dates fixed stand altered~ as indicated .
therein, but· we· are not concerned with the same in these proceedings. The
last date of receipt of vacancy position is fixed· as September of each year
G and the Ilnd round of .counselling is proposed io be taken during the period
fixed therein.

-Now in these petitions. It is contended that the Ilnd'round of counselling
for the All-India quota seats which was scheduled to be held have neither
been held as the Pre-Medical Test (PMT) is not conducted nor counselling
H for the seats under the State quota is completed.
NEELU ARORA v. U.0.1. [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 565

This Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India & A
Ors, etc. etc., (1984] 3 SCC 654 and Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motila/
Nehru Medical College & Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 727, while disapproving of the
total reservation on different scores in regard to admission of students in
medical courses such as MBBS and post-graduate :specialities, stated· that
"the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the perspective of social
justice would justify some extent of reservation preference for students passing B
the qualifying examination". The primary consideration in fonnulating the
scheme for creating a reservation in favour of candidates is broadly based on
national approach as against the State based reservation. This background
resulted in the fonnulation of the Scheme, which is sought to be interpreted
or modified now. We should not read the Schemes framed by this Court as C
if they are Statutes or that inexorable rights are conferred 11pon the parties.
For the academic year 2001-2002, 1483 seats for MBBS course and 146 seats
for BDS course, totalling 1629 seats were made available by the States under
the 15% All-India Quota. On the basis of the results declared by respondent
No.2, 2759 successful candidates were sent call letters. By the end of the first
round of counselling, 86 seats remained un-filled to be allotted in the second D
round. Some States or colleges informed their vacancy position under 15%
All-India Quota from first round of allotment amounting to 245 seats. However,
some States have not intimated vacancy position even as late as 5.9.2001.
>-·
It is submitted that the candidates from these States who have been E
allotted seats in the first round of allotment may not have been given the
course or college or place of their. choice and in case later on they get the
allotment of their choice under the State quota, then they will vacate the seats
allotted to them under the All-India Quota. Hence they apprehend that more
than 700 seats will fall vacant once the counselling is conducted in the
aforesaid States. Therefore, it is submitted that a Illrd round of counselling F
is required to be held and that the vacant seats, if any, should arise in the 15
per cent All-India Quota seats should not be allowed to revert back to the
States/Colleges after September 200 I and that instead successful and
meritorious candidates in the All-India Quota should be allotted these seats
or such other orders as necessary may be passed.
G
As per clause I4 of the Scheme if the Dean or the Principal of the
concerned college does not notify the vac.ancy position due to non-joining of
candidates or candidate in the first round of counselling before the date
indicated therein, the seats allotted to the college will be treated as vacant and
allotment of candidates will be·made against these deemed vacant seats and H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 1 S.C.R.

A it shall be the responsibility of the Dean of the Principle of the concerned
college to give admission to those candidates. The Ilnd round of allotment by
personal appearance will be for candidates who were allotted a seat in the
first round and who wish to change their allotted college/course and wish to
join the same against vacancies arising due to non-joining of the candidates
allotted in first round of personal appearance and for candidates on the merit
B list who could not be considered for allotment in the first round. It is thus the
Jlnd round of counselling by personal appearance was to be concluded by a
particular date.
+
When a detailed scheme has be.en framed through orders or this Court
C and the manner in which it has to be worked out is also indicated therein, we
do not think that if in a particular year there is any short fall or certain
number of seats are not filled up, the same should be done by adopting one
more round of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of
counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering the
scheme as and when seats are found vacant. What is to be borne in mind is
D that broad equality will have to be achieved and not that it should result in
any mathematical exactitude. Out of about 1600 seats, if 250 seats are not
filled up for various -reasons, we do not think it should result in the third
round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again
vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be
E undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under
the All-India Quota are filled up. That is not the object of the Scheme
formulated by this Court. The object was to achieve a broad based equality
as indicated by us at the outset and we do not think that any steps have to
be taken for altering the Scheme. Moreover, this Court in Medical Council
of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors., [2002] 7 SCC 258, has taken the view that
F there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against
the very spirit of statutes governing medical education. Even if seats are
unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there
cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the
subsequent year. If these aspects are borne in mind we do not think any
G reliefs as sought for by the petitioners can be granted under these petitions.

Interlocutory Applications filed shall stand disposed of in view of the
order made by us in the main petitions.

These petitions shall stand dismissed.

H R.P. Petitions dismissed.