ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) All the four writ petitions involve the same question of facts and law. Accordingly, they were all taken up together for hearing and disposal. However, for the sake of convenience in this judgment I will refer to the records of AST 278 of 2017.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she passed the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (under graduate.-2017 (in short 'NEET'. with 93.485187 percentile score having all India rank of 70725. She participated in all rounds of counseling conducted by the respondent no. 2. However, even after verification, she was not allotted any seat in any medical college. After attending the final manual round of counseling on 26 August, 2017, she came to know that seats are still lying vacant in several medical colleges of West Bengal. She contacted the respondent authorities for allotting one of the vacant seats to her, but in vain. She moved a writ petition in this Court being AST No. 264 of 2017 which was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's prayer and if seats were vacant and the petitioner is otherwise eligible for admission to the MBBS course going by the merit list, to issue necessary directions for admission of the petitioner on the MBBS course. The petitioner contacted the authorities with the aforesaid order who initially said that they were looking into the matter but finally told her on 31 August, 2017 that she could not be allotted any seat in any medical college even if seats were vacant. The petitioner contends that the cut-off date for admission was 31 August, 2017 and the petitioner approached this Court and the authorities prior thereto. It was the duty of the authorities to fill up all the seats. The authorities have acted in breach of law and arbitrarily.
(3.) Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Sr. Adv. and Mr. Joydip Kar, learned Sr. Adv. appearing for the petitioners relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Courts in support of their submission that it is the duty of the respondent authorities to fill up all seats and a candidate can be given admission even after the cut-off date if he/she was wrongly deprived of a seat earlier. Mr. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel relied on the following authorities: (i) Parmender Kumar-vs.-State of Haryana , (2012) 1 SCC 177. Learned Sr. Counsel relied on paragraph 32 of the decision which reads as follows;- "32. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court. However, we appear to be facing the same problem, as was faced by this Court in Vinay Rampal case. The counseling process in these appeals was to be conducted on 06.04.2011 and the academic session was to commence on 10.05.2011. In other words, the appellants have already lost about six months of the courses in question. As was observed in Vinay Rampal case, the sands of time had run out which is inevitable in judicial process. Following the same reasoning, as was adopted in the aforesaid case, we direct that the appellants shall be admitted in the postgraduate or diploma courses, for which they have been selected, for the new academic year without any further test or selection." (ii) Asha-vs.-Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences , (2012) 7 SCC 389. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 29, 30, 32 and 38.2 of the said judgment which read as follows:- "29. However, the question that immediately follows is whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th September of the academic year concerned, that being the last date for admission. The respondents before us have argued with some vehemence that it will amount to a mid-term admission which is impermissible, will result in indiscipline and will cause prejudice to other candidates. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of India-vs.-Madhu Singh , (2002) 7 SCC 258, Neelu Arora-vs.-Union of India , (2003) 3 SCC 366, Aman Deep Jaswal-vs.-State of Punjab , (2006) 9 SCC 597, Medical Council of India-vs.-Naina Verma, (2005) 12 SCC 626, Mridul Dhar-vs.-Union of India , (2005) 2 SCC 65. 30. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer. 32. Though there can be the rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. 38.2 Question (b): 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding of second counseling by 15th September of the relevant academic year [in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta-vs.-State of Chhattisgarh , (2012) 7 SCC 433]. Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the Courts. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta and this judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefore are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction." Mr. Gupta, Learned Sr. Counsel also relied on the observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 40.4 to the effect that there are a number of petitions filed in the High Courts of the country challenging the admissions on varied grounds and also praying for grant of admission on merit to the respective professional courses of MBBS/BDS and career of the meritorious youth is at stake. These are matters relating to adherence to the rule of merit and when its breach is complained of, the judiciary may be expected to deal with the said grievances preferentially and effectively. (iii) Manoj Kumar Dhaka-vs.-Union of India , (2013) 133 DRJ 473. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which read as follows:- "19. These Super Specialty Courses are not classroom courses, though 80% attendance is informed to have been prescribed. The loss of three months in gaining hands on practical experience, we are sure, can always be compensated by extra hours put in by the candidate. It cannot be lost sight of that the appellant approached this Court without any delay and the writ petition was drafted on 5th July, 2012 itself and filed immediately thereafter, i.e. well before the last date prescribed for admission. Unfortunately the correct facts came to be revealed only through recording of the statement of the Registrar of PGIMER by the learned Single Judge. Had the view, as we have taken, been taken immediately, the appellant would have been admitted well within the prescribed time. 20. We are further of the opinion that the decision of the GGSIPU to reject the request of PGIMER for the four seats in terms of amended Regulation 12(4) was wrong. Though PGIMER did not pursue the case but it cannot be lost sight of that it is a Government Institute with none being personally interested and it is ultimately the students who are the beneficiary of the courses which are being imparted and in our view they would have a cause of action against the wrongful denial/reduction of seats." ;