AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of counselling as prescribed in the Information Brochure issued for the UPPGMEE, 2016 and to ensure that no seats in any of the courses advertised in the Information Brochure are allowed to go vacant for the academic year 2016-2017. 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the Appellants had appeared in the written test of UPPGMEE-2016 and after being declared successful, they participated in the first round of counselling which was held from 04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016. The candidates who got selected in the said counselling joined their respective seats allotted to them. The case of the Appellants before the High Court was that as per the Information Brochure, minimum three round of counsellings are to be held and in case sufficient number of seats are left unallotted at the end of third round of counselling, then a mop-up round of allotment is required to be organized on the notified date after giving due publicity by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, U.P. to ensure that there is no loss of PG seats in the academic year 2016-2017. It was urged before the High Court that terms and conditions for participating in the mop-up round of counsell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the concerned authority was bound to fill up the seats in accord with the time Schedule stricto sensu and any violation thereof is to be seriously viewed. 5. It was also highlighted by the contesting Respondent that after the interim order passed by this Court on 12.05.2016 the merit list was drawn and counselling was carried out by 30.05.2016 as it was the last date fixed by the MCI for completion of admission process. It was highlighted that certain seats are lying vacant on ground of non-joining of the candidates and no further steps could be taken. Similar arguments were canvassed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Medical Council of India. 6. The High Court adverted to the factual background which was to the effect that a policy decision was taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.01.2014 whereby 30% of postgraduate seats had been reserved for those candidates who had completed three years service in the rural areas and in pursuance of the same, the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 was issued to engage Provincial Medical Health Services Cadre members to go for higher education. In the said order, it was also provided that those members of Provincial Services who ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erit list. This exercise shall be completed before 30-5-2016, the last date fixed for granting of admission. The entire exercise so conducted shall, however, remain subject to the outcome of these proceedings. 10. The matter was finally decided on 16.08.2016. The three-Judge Bench in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra) referred to the decisions in AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 428, State of M.P. and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 83, Satyabrata Sahoo and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 203 and Sudhir N. (supra) and ruled that Regulation 9 per se makes no distinction between Government and non-Government colleges for allocation of weightage of marks to in-service candidates. Instead, it mandates preparation of one merit list for the State on the basis of results in NEET and further, regarding in-service candidates, all it provides is that the candidate must have been in-service of a Government/public Authority and served in remote and difficult areas notified by the State Government and the Competent Authority from time to time. The Court further held that the authorities are obliged to continue with the admission process strictl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable. Considering the above, the inescapable conclusion is that the procedure evolved in Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, being in larger public interest. 11. Lastly, the Court posed the question whether the arrangement directed in terms of order dated 12.05.2016 by the Court should have prospective effect or also apply to admissions for academic year 2015-2016, for the subject matter of challenge before the High Court pertained to the academic year 2015-2016, the dispensation directed in terms of Order dated 12th May 2016 should apply thereto. However, considering the fact that the said admission process had been completed and all concerned had acted upon on that basis and that the candidates admitted to the respective Post Graduate Degree Courses in the concerned colleges had also commenced their studies, the Court held that it would not be appropriate to unsettle that position given the fact that neither the direct candidates nor the eligible in-service candidates who had worked in remote and/or difficult areas in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c Year 2016-17 onwards on the basis of Regulation 9 as in force. We are conscious of the fact that this arrangement is likely to affect some of the direct candidates, if not a large number of candidates whose applications were already processed by the competent Authority for concerned Post Graduate Degree Course for Academic Year 2016-17. However, their admissions cannot be validated in breach of or disregarding the mandate of Regulation 9, as in force. The appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7th April, 2016 are disposed of accordingly." 12. After so stating, this Court adverted to the second set of appeals arising from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 27.03.16 wherein it had taken the view that the direction to prepare a fresh merit list vide interim order dated 12.05.16 was in respect of only such eligible and in service candidates as had submitted applications for admission to post-graduate courses for relevant academic year within the stipulated time and the direction was not to consider all similarly placed persons (eligible in-service candidates) irrespective whether they had made applications for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who fails to comply with the directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was further contended before the High Court by the Respondent No. 2 that in terms of the interim order of this Court, all the seats were allotted to the respective candidates and the admission process stood completed by 30.05.2016 and as regards unfilled seats, only 11 seats were lying vacant on account of non-joining of the candidates and no further steps could be taken on account of embargo put by the MCI with regard to the last date for completion and the time frame could only be altered or modified by this Court. 15. Considering the rival submissions, the High Court accepted the submissions of the Respondent and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. 16. We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, learned senior Counsel along with Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior Counsel, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG and Mr. Gaurav Sharma learned Counsel for the Respondents. 17. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit or "an act of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st and in pursuance of that order, State Government had redrawn the merit list and fresh counselling was held on 27.05.2016 and all the seats were filled up, except 71 seats which remained vacant due to non-availability of the candidates for the said courses. Therefore, in such circumstances no further counselling was required. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the seats became vacant after the cut-off date in different Government Medical Colleges because after taking admission some of the candidates had either resigned from the allotted seats or not joined the courses after admission. 19. Be it noted that IA No. 3 of 2016 was filed by the applicants seeking "mop-up" round of counselling for filling up the vacant seats which arose due to non-joining or resignation after de novo counselling on the basis of Clause 15 of the Information Brochure for the UPPGMEE, 2016. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior Counsel submits that in the present case only one round of counselling took place as the criteria for preparing the merit list was changed vide order of this Court. It is further submitted by her that after de novo round of counselling held on 30.05.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....student who has already taken admission will not be eligible to participate in this counseling. Needless to say, the University shall follow the procedure as provided in the admission brochure/prospectus. We further say that the vacant seats are meant only for Government colleges and Universities. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we have passed this order in the special features of the case. 22. The situation in the case of the said two States is totally different than the present one. In the instant case, the Appellants approached the High Court only on 01.09.2016. They did not choose to move this Court when the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra) was pending. They were aware that such a litigation was pending before this Court. Despite the same, they chose to maintain a sphinx like silence. It is beyond any trace of doubt that admission to post graduate courses for the academic session 2016-2017 in the State of Uttar Pradesh stood concluded by this Court as per the decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra). Had the grievance been raised before this Court at the time when the special leave petitions were filed in respect of the seats lying vacant, the matter could possi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 25. Noting that there was mistake by the concerned district court, relief was granted by stating so: In view of the mistake of the Court which needs to be righted the parties are relegated to the position they occupied on January 6, 1958, when the error was committed by the Court which error is being rectified by us nunc pro tunc. 26. Another three-Judge Bench in Jagannath Singh and Ors. v. Dr. Ram Naresh Singh (1970) 1 SCC 573, took note of the fact that the judgment by the High Court had been rendered ex-parte, and the application for recall did not impress the High Court. Appreciating the factual matrix that there was an error in the cause list and accepting that there was an omission to mention the case correctly in the cause list and treating it as a mistake of the court, the Court held that though there was some negligence on the part of the counsel or of his clerk but it was not so grave as to disentitle the party to be heard, and in any event, the alleged contemnors could not be punished for a mistake on the part of their counsel or the counsel's clerk. Being of this view, this Court set aside the order with costs. 27. In Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR 1981 Gau 41, L. Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer AIR 1962 SC 633, Bhikhi Lal v. Tribeni AIR 1965 SC 1935, Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1047, Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 500 and Thirugnanavalli Ammal v. P. Venugopala Pillai AIR 1940 Mad 29 and, eventually analysing the facts, opined that rectification of the decree was totally misconceived. 29. In this regard, we may usefully refer to a passage from Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437, wherein it has been ruled that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable when a situation is projected where the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. In a case, where any undeserved or unfair advantage has been gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court, and the same requires to be neutralized, the said maxim is to be made applicable. 30. In this regard, reference to the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 62 would....