Admission Granted After Document Scrutiny Cannot Be Cancelled Without Violating Natural Justice Principles.

The Appointing University challenged a Single Judge’s order that set aside the cancellation of admission for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (siblings of a deceased Navy sailor)

The Respondents' brother died in harness, a death attributed to military service

Based on Relationship and Dependency Certificates issued by the Naval Pension Office and the Rajya/Zila Sainik Board, the Respondents were granted MBBS admission under the "Defence Category Priority-III"

Post-admission, the Board issued an informal email stating the Respondents were ineligible as "siblings" under the priority policy, leading the University to issue a Notice of Cancellation without a hearing

The Respondents had not misrepresented any facts during the admission process

1. Whether the brother and sister of a deceased Defence personnel are entitled to claim reservation under "Defence Category Priority-III" as "wards" within the meaning of the Ministry of Defence Circular and University Admission Brochure

2. Whether the University could validly cancel a student's admission—granted after due scrutiny and without misrepresentation—solely based on a change of opinion by an external authority without following the principles of natural justice

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, requiring a fair hearing before adverse action against a student's educational rights

It relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, establishing that public orders must contain independent reasoning and stand on their own merits

Precedents from Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and A. Sudha v. University of Mysore were applied to hold that admissions obtained without fraud/misrepresentation cannot be cancelled by revisiting the same material

Lastly, it applied the interpretation of "wards" from Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College, suggesting a broader inclusive definition in specific contexts

The Court found that the Respondents acted bona fide, disclosing their sibling relationship at every stage, and the Board had formally verified their eligibility during physical counseling

The cancellation was found legally unsustainable because it lacked independent reasoning, relying solely on a "one-line informal e-mail" from the Board, which violated the rule in Mohinder Singh Gill

Regarding the definition of "wards," the Court noted the term was undefined in the Admission Brochure and Circular

By looking at various MoD policies (Agniveer scripts and Compassionate Appointment policies), the Court observed that the government consistently includes siblings of unmarried deceased soldiers within the family unit entitled to benefits. Thus, the University's restrictive interpretation was deemed arbitrary.

The Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s judgment, holding that the cancellation of admission was vitiated by a lack of natural justice and legal reasoning. It ordered that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be allowed to continue their MBBS studies with all consequential reliefs, vacating the stay previously granted on 29.04.2024.