Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of admissions of several students to various dental colleges in Rajasthan for the academic sessions 2018—19 and 2019—20, a single-judge bench of Dinesh Mehta, J., allowed the writ petitions in equity though affirmed the DCI’s discharge order dated 03-12-2019 on merits. The Court regularised the admissions of all petitioners subject to payment of a token fine of ₹1 lac per student.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, in three writ petitions filed by three students, whose name, despite qualifying NEET 2019, were not included in the list of admitted students uploaded by the college on the official portal by the prescribed cut-off date (15-09-2019). The respondents, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) and Dental Council of India (DCI) asserted that the petitioners’ names were not uploaded on time, rendering their admissions invalid. The college later submitted a revised list on 01-10-2019, including their names, citing inadvertence.
In the other connected petitions, although the petitioners’ names were uploaded on time, they were not registered with the NEET UG Counseling Board, which was mandatory for valid admission.
Moot Points
-
Whether the non-inclusion of students’ names in the list uploaded by the college by the cut-off date invalidates otherwise lawful admissions?
-
Whether students not registered with the Counseling Board but admitted to dental colleges can have their admissions regularised?
-
Should the colleges and students be penalised for these irregularities?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that they were NEET-qualified and eligible. It was stated that the omission from the list was due to the college’s failure to upload names timely, a fault not attributable to the students. It was argued that the petitioners pursued their studies in good faith and should not suffer due to administrative lapses of the institution. The petitioners plead for regularisation of their admissions in the interest of justice and stated that significant time is already spent and they have successful completed their courses.
However, the respondents contended that the petitioners had “got irregular admissions with the connivance of the respondent — college.” It was contended that “neither the petitioners nor the college are entitled to any sympathetic consideration.” It was emphasised that rules were flouted, and colleges must not be allowed to “go scot-free” for repeated violations. It was stated that RUHS had already imposed a ₹1 crore fine on the college in relation to some of these students.
Court’s Observation
The Court acknowledged the dual failures, i.e., the students’ lack of diligence and the institutions’ systemic bypassing of norms. The Court stated that while the students had qualified NEET and had pursued their studies diligently under the Court’s interim orders, the admissions granted by the colleges were irregular and violative of DCI regulations and State counseling procedures.
The Court observed that “non-reflection of the names of the petitioners in the list of students uploaded on 15.09.2019 cannot be countenanced by this Court,” and that “the plea taken by the respondent—college… is nothing but a lame excuse.”
Citing precedents such as Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, (1986) Supp SCC 740 and Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, (2020) 13 SCC 675, the Court held that “we do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements…” The Court recognised petitioners’ eligibility and stated that “if at this stage…the order passed by DCI is allowed to be given effect to…these young students will be back to square one. Not only 5-6 years of their prime youth would go in vain, but also their fee and money would be shredded into the drains.”
The Court stated that if petitioners’ admission is regularised, subject to payment of ₹1 lac fine from each student for the lack of diligence, it would meet the ends of justice and “may operate as a scarecrow for the future students to remain cautious and careful, while getting admissions and thus, their career are not left in lurch.”
The Court allowed that the students who were not registered with the Counseling Board but had completed their education under interim orders, to be regularised upon payment of ₹1 lakh fine. However, three students who had applied as General candidates but took admission as OBC, were fined ₹2 lakhs each due to “change of category,” which is “impermissible in normal circumstances.”
The Court stressed on the need to penalise institutions for recurring violations, warning that private colleges desist from giving irregular admissions.
“It is high time when the Court should warn the private colleges to desist from giving irregular admissions… They should not consider end of their duties by imposition of fine – they should withdraw or revoke the recognition granted to such colleges…”
The Court imposed a fine of ₹7.5 lakhs per irregular admission on the concerned colleges including Vyas Dental College with a direction that failure to pay such fines would result in delisting from Counseling Board’s eligibility list.
Court’s Direction
The Court issued following directions —
-
Directed to regularised all admissions, subject to a token penalty of ₹1,00,000/- per student (₹2,00,000 for certain petitioners with category-related discrepancies).
-
Directed RUHS to issue mark-sheets and degrees, upon submission of the fine and a webcopy of the order.
-
Directed the colleges to pay ₹7,50,000/- per student admitted irregularly. Failure to do so would result in removal from the list of eligible colleges.
-
Directed RUHS to maintain the amount in a separate account and utilize it by 31-03-2026 for purchasing dental chairs and equipment for the Government Dental College, Jodhpur.
[Pooja Punaram Patel v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 1192, Decided on 03-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater and Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG assisted by Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary, Mr. A.A. Bhansali, Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi, Mr. Rajesh Punia, Mr. Sher Singh Rathore for Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit, AAG, Mr. Vipul Dharnia and Mr. Sanwar Lal, Dy.G.C., Counsel for the Respondents
