The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in SLP assailing Himachal Pradesh High Court's order of setting aside a notice issued by a Medical College in the State of HP which made the candidates who had been allocated PG seats in previous rounds of State Counselling ineligible to participate in further rounds of counselling including Mop Up round.
While refusing to grant an interim relief in the plea assailing High Court's order dated May 23, 2022 the vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna said,
"These are the fate of the system, we have to go ahead. The exam is tomorrow only, ask them to appear. Passing of any interim order will lead to more complications."
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave and Advocate Mushtaq Salim appeared for the petitioner.
Case Before The Himachal Pradesh High Court
The respondent had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court assailing the impugned notification dated March 19, 2022 issued by the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, on the ground that it was in violation of clause 2.3 of the Prospectus.
Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus mandated the candidates who were admitted under 50% State Quota in Govt Medical Colleges of the State and intended to participate in Mop Up/ extended Mop Up round to surrender their already occupied PG seat.
The respondent who had sought admission in PG course under State Quota and had later surrendered the seat had also sought relief to participate in the Mop Up Round/extended Mop Up round.
Opposing the petition, the State's counsel had relied on advisory dated March 16 issued by the MCC which prevented students who have taken seats in State Quota after Round 2 from participating in the Mop-Up.
The bench of Justices Sabina and Satyen Vaidya while setting aside the impugned notification & declaring the State's action of restraining the respondent from participating in the Mop Up round as "illegal" in their order said,
"The respondents were legally bound to honour the terms of the Prospectus and could not take shelter of advisory issued vis-à-vis All India Quota. So far as the seats falling within the State Quota are concerned, they were to be filled up in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus. The advisory dated 16.3.2022 (Annexure P-8) did not relate to the State Quota and the respondents cannot take shelter of the said advisory to deny opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the Mop Up round in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus."
The High Court had further said, "The instructions issued vis-à-vis All India Quota cannot be ipso facto applied to the State Quota. So far as the filling up the seats with regard to the State Quota are concerned, the same were to be governed by Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus."
Case Title: Vikrant Balouria & Ors. v Ashish Kumar & Ors| Diary No 17155 of 2022
Click Here To Read High Court Order
