Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7940 OF 2013
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.25931 OF 2013)
Dr. Kulmeet Kaur Mahal & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Review Application No.89
of 2013 in LPA No.1070 of 2013, by which the Division
Page 1
2
Bench of the High Court clarified its earlier order dated
25.7.2013 stating as follows :-
“We thus clarify that there has not to be
disturbance of the already allocated seats in the
general category but whatever further seats
remain vacant and/or are spill over from 60%
quota, the RMOs will also compete with the only
difference that there would be weightage given
to them as per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of
India Regulations.”
3. Appellants, who are nine in number and not made
parties to the Review Petition, have questioned the order
of the High Court on the following questions of law :-
I. Whether the impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court is sustainable in the teeth of
law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CA
No.5705-5706 of 2012 Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors.
Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. vide judgment dated
03.08.2012 since, in the said case this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to quash the clause of
prospectus (to the extent that it provided for
weightage to in-service candidates inspite of
there being a reservation of seats for them to the
extent of 50%) and held it to be ultra vires ?
JUDGMENT
II. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have
expanded the scope of a writ petition while
deciding a Review Application by creating a new
category of candidates of RMOs by giving
additional weightage of marks to them on the
basis of their tenure of service within 40% open
category seats for MD Course admissions?
Page 2
3
III. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have
framed a new policy/new criteria without there
being any provisions for the same either in the
prospectus issued by Baba Farid University
and/or in the Regulations issued by Medical
Council of India, and which is contrary to the law
laid down by this Hon’ble Court?
IV. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have
laid down new rules for admission to Post
Graduate Medical Courses midway i.e. before the
second counselling for the State of Punjab was to
take place?
4. Shri Shyam Devan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Appellants, submitted that the High Court was not
justified in granting the substantial reliefs in a review
application filed in a dismissed appeal, confirming the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. By the impugned
order, the learned senior counsel submitted that the
JUDGMENT
Division Bench of the High Court has created a new
category of in-service candidates, and granted reservation
carving out the same for the 40% quota earmarked for
general category candidates for admission to MD course.
At best they could seek a claim only for the 60% quota
earmarked for in-service candidates and that itself is a
moot question. The learned senior counsel, in support of
Page 3
4
his contention placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa
& Ors. , (2012) 8 SCC 203. Learned senior counsel
submitted that the RMOs cannot infiltrate into the 40%
quota earmarked for the general category candidates
depriving appellants of their choice of subject or college.
5. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing
for the RMOs submitted that the impugned order in no
way deprives admission of the appellants, nor takes away
their choice of subject or the college. Learned senior
counsel tried to demonstrate the same by producing a
chart which throws considerable light on his plea. Shri
Patwalia, learned senior counsel also submitted that even
JUDGMENT
on merits the appellants have no case nor on equity.
6. We are of the view that the order passed by the High
Court in the review application, as a matter of fact does
not deprive the right of the appellants in getting admission
into their preferred colleges or favourite subjects, even
though we have our own reservation about the manner in
which the High Court has entertained the review petition
Page 4
5
and granted the reliefs. But since the rights of the
appellants are not adversely affected and the appellants
and the RMOs have already been admitted to the various
colleges and the counselling is also over, it would not be in
the interest of justice to disturb the admission of the
appellants or the contesting respondents.
7. We also find no reason to entertain the application for
impleadment, which was filed after a period of one month
from the date of passing of the impugned order. In
academic matters, the time limit has to be strictly viewed
and against the impugned order, candidates, if had any
grievance, ought to have approached this Court at the
earliest opportunity, which they did not. In such
JUDGMENT
circumstances, we find no reason to entertain the
Impleadment Application.
8. We, however, do not propose to give our stamp of
approval to the clarification issued by the High Court in
the review application, which we order, would be
restricted to the facts of this case. Therefore, all legal
Page 5
6
questions arising out of that order are left open to be
decided in an appropriate case.
9. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed, so also
application for impleadment. There shall be no order as
to costs.
………………………………J.
(K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
….……………………………J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Page 6