Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Counseling Rounds Due to Delayed Action

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to deny further rounds of counseling due to delayed action by the appellants and the need to adhere to the admission schedule. The Court ruled that the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" did not apply in this case, emphasizing the importance of timely action and adherence to established schedules. Additionally, the Government Order providing reservation for in-service candidates was quashed, with the Court affirming the merit-based admissions principle. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Obligation to conduct second, third, and mop-up rounds of counselling.
2. Adherence to the time schedule for admissions.
3. Validity of the Government Order providing reservation for in-service candidates.
4. Application of the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit."

Detailed Analysis:

Obligation to Conduct Second, Third, and Mop-up Rounds of Counselling:
The appellants argued that the respondents were obligated to conduct the second, third, and mop-up rounds of counselling as per the Information Brochure for UPPGMEE-2016 to ensure no seats remained vacant for the academic year 2016-2017. They contended that not holding these rounds infringed their rights to admission based on merit. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that the admissions process had concluded by 30.05.2016, and only 11 seats remained vacant due to non-joining of candidates, with no further steps permissible due to the MCI's cut-off date.

Adherence to the Time Schedule for Admissions:
The respondents argued, citing Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, that the time schedule for admissions must be strictly adhered to, and midstream admissions or carrying forward unfilled seats to another academic year was not permissible. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing the need to follow the time schedule stricto sensu to avoid contempt of court.

Validity of the Government Order Providing Reservation for In-service Candidates:
The Government Order dated 28.02.2014, which reserved 30% of postgraduate seats for candidates serving in rural areas, was quashed by the High Court. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan, which ruled that Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, does not distinguish between government and non-government colleges for allocation of weightage marks to in-service candidates. The Court held that the provision for weightage marks was to incentivize service in rural areas and ensure merit-based admissions.

Application of the Maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit":
The appellants invoked the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no man), arguing that delays due to court orders should not prejudice them. They cited precedents where courts rectified errors to prevent prejudice caused by court actions. However, the Supreme Court found this maxim inapplicable to the present case, noting that the appellants did not act promptly and only approached the High Court on 01.09.2016, after the admissions process had concluded. The Court emphasized that the law does not assist the non-vigilant and that applying the maxim in this context would lead to chaos and anarchy, which the law abhors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants' delayed action and the need to adhere to the established admission schedule precluded any further rounds of counselling. The Court ruled that the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" was not applicable in this case, and the High Court's decision to uphold the strict adherence to the admission schedule and quash the Government Order for reservation was justified. The appeal was found to be without substance and dismissed with no order as to costs.

---