Admission to MBBS Courses and Legal Parameters

Admission to MBBS Courses and Legal Parameters

The case of Tanya Mann v. Registrar [2019] GCtR 6452 (Delhi) has discussed the issue of admission in MBBS courses where a candidate who secured provisional admission by a Court order had to vacate the seat due to availability of a more meritorious candidate.

Rashmi and Tanya both were daughters of ex-servicemen and had appeared in NEET-UG examination. 

In 2nd round of counselling, 2 candidates were given seats. Grant of 2 seats to those candidates were challenged. Later on, University conducted additional counselling. 

The submission of Rashmi, in her writ petition was that as the most meritorious candidate in the DOBCDEF category, who was available in the extended round of counselling, she, and not Tanya, ought to have been admitted against the seat vacated by Atul. 

Rashmi, admittedly, is superior in merit to Tanya. The scheme of counselling and admission, as reflected in the Notifications issued by the GGSIPU, make it clear that, among the candidates available at the time of any particular round of counselling, admission would be made on the basis of merit. 

It would be doing complete disservice to the very concept of medical education, as well as the public interest, to jettison the opportunity for admission to an MBBS seat, available, in law, to a candidate superior in merit, in favour of a candidate inferior in merit. Of course, this is always subject to the caveat that, if the applicable Rules, Regulations or notifications do not entitle the superior candidate to be admitted, the right of the inferior candidate would have to prevail. 

It is an admitted position that, on the occasion of the extended round of counselling, which took place on 31st August, 2019, Rashmi was the candidate, highest in merit, available for admission against the seat vacated by Atul.

Court said that it is not able to find fault with the GGSIPU, in granting provisional admission to Tanya, as the said admission had been granted in compliance with the directions issued by us on 30th August, 2019. Those directions had, however, been issued without Court having been made aware of the fact that any candidate, higher in merit, was available – indeed, not being blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, no one could have predicted, at that stage, whether, in the extended counselling which was to take place the next day, i.e. on 31st August, 2019, any candidate, superior in merit to Tanya would, or would not, turn up.

The provisional admission granted to Tanya Mann (the appellant in LPA 556/2019), consequent to the extended round of counselling, which took place on 31st August, 2019 was resultantly, stand cancelled, and Rashmi Nagia (the petitioner in WP (C) 9605/2019) was held to be entitled to be admitted against the said seat, subject to fulfilling the requisite formalities.