Merit-based medical admissions must follow prescribed counselling; bypassing the entrance merit list makes alternative selections illegal.

Medical admissions to MBBS seats must follow the prescribed merit-based common entrance and counselling regime, and a private college cannot bypass the RPMT-2008 merit list through an independent selection process. Admissions based on a BDS-oriented test or on 10+2 marks were treated as inconsistent with the governing admission framework and therefore illegal, not merely irregular. The institution could not invoke equity after defeating the prescribed counselling process, especially where meritorious waiting-list candidates were deprived of admission without fault. Relief was directed in favour of the RPMT-2008 waiting-list candidates by requiring counselling and consideration for admission on merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether admissions to the 85% seats in the MBBS course could be made by the private medical college from sources other than the RPMT-2008 merit list despite the University Ordinance and MCI Regulations; (ii) whether the admissions made on the basis of PC-PMT for BDS and 10+2 marks could be treated as valid or only irregular; (iii) whether the institution could claim equity after bypassing the merit-based counselling process; and (iv) what relief should follow for the waiting-list candidates who were denied admission.

Issue (i): Whether admissions to the 85% seats in the MBBS course could be made by the private medical college from sources other than the RPMT-2008 merit list despite the University Ordinance and MCI Regulations.

Analysis: The admission framework in the State required selection through a common entrance examination and counselling on merit. The court treated the Medical Council regulations and the University ordinance as mandatory for medical admissions, and held that the policy of merit-based selection could not be displaced by the institution's separate admission process. The fact that the institution had been included in the RPMT pool and had not participated in counselling did not permit it to bypass the prescribed mechanism.

Conclusion: The admissions were required to be made through RPMT-2008 counselling and not through an independent mode of selection.

Issue (ii): Whether the admissions made on the basis of PC-PMT for BDS and 10+2 marks could be treated as valid or only irregular.

Analysis: The court held that, in the context of medical education, merit determined through the prescribed common entrance system could not be sacrificed. Admissions made from a BDS-oriented test and from 10+2 marks were inconsistent with the governing admission procedure for MBBS seats and resulted in bypassing meritorious RPMT candidates. The court therefore rejected the attempt to characterise such admissions as merely irregular.

Conclusion: The admissions made through PC-PMT and 10+2 marks were illegal, not merely irregular.

Issue (iii): Whether the institution could claim equity after bypassing the merit-based counselling process.

Analysis: The court found that the institution had acted in a manner designed to frustrate the prescribed admission process and had admitted students contrary to the merit list and counselling requirement. In such circumstances, neither the institution nor the beneficiaries of the illegal admissions could invoke equity against the meritorious candidates who had been deprived of admission without fault on their part.

Conclusion: No equity was available to the institution or the illegally admitted students.

Issue (iv): What relief should follow for the waiting-list candidates who were denied admission.

Analysis: Since the admissions already made were held illegal and the petitioners had been pursuing their remedy before the closure of the admission schedule, the court directed that counselling be held from the RPMT-2008 waiting list and that the meritorious petitioners be considered for admission. The decision also preserved the ongoing academic process by requiring completion before the next admission cycle.

Conclusion: The waiting-list petitioners were entitled to be considered for admission through counselling from the RPMT-2008 merit list.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned admissions in MBBS were struck down, and the State was required to restore merit-based admissions through the RPMT-2008 waiting list.

Ratio Decidendi: In medical admissions, a prescribed common entrance and counselling regime based on merit is mandatory, and admissions made in contravention of that regime are illegal and unenforceable even if the institution later seeks to rely on alternative selection methods or equity.

---