Eligibility Criteria Cannot Be Relaxed Based On Equity: Punjab And Haryana High Court
The Court noted that the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria, and the exercise of equitable jurisdiction could not be used to override clear statutory mandates.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the denial of admission to a BAMS course, holding that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirement of completing the 10+2 examination from a single Board, as mandated by the admission notification issued by the Department of Medical Education and Research, Government of Punjab, and further observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, cannot grant relief in defiance of clear statutory provisions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “The writ Court, whilst exercising its plenary powers in equity, is vested with the authority to bridge the lacunae that may exist within the rigid framework of statutory provisions. However, such a course of action must be undertaken with due reverence to the overarching legal results in judicial encroachment that supplant it; or it tampers the rigours of legal formalism without eviscerating the statutory fabric upon which the administration of justice firmly rests.”
The Court added, “The equitable jurisdiction of a writ Court must be exercised with judicious restraint, ensuring that its decisions do not traverse beyond the permissible precincts of legal propriety.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Karnwal Singh Mahey, while Advocate Shreya Bublani appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner completed his 10+2 examination with subjects including Physics, Chemistry, and English from one Board and later appeared for NEET, securing 96 marks. Subsequently, the Petitioner took Biology as an additional subject from another Board. Based on his NEET score, he was provisionally allotted a seat in the BAMS program. However, the concerned institution refused to confirm the admission, citing non-compliance with Clause 18 of the admission notification, which mandated that the qualifying examination must be completed from a single Board.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner approached the High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the institution to grant him admission, contending that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court examined the admission notification, under which clause 18 stated that a candidate must have passed the qualifying examination from a single board to be eligible for admission.
The Bench noted, “Juxtaposing Clause 18 and the qualification(s) possessed by the petitioner, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified to apply for the course in question in terms of Clause 18 since he did not pass the qualifying examination (10+2) from a single Board/University.”
The Court observed that invocation of equitability did not confer an unfettered prerogative to render an order in complete defiance of the established law of the land.
The Bench stated, “…the invocation of equitable jurisdiction does not confer upon the Court an unfettered prerogative to oblivion of the established tenets of the law of the land. The administration of equity must operate within the defined contours of jurisprudence and cannot transgress into the realm of precepts of law, are granted without legal substratum.”
The Bench observed that the Petitioner did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria and, therefore, could not be granted admission.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Gurpreet Singh v. Guru Ravidas University VPO Kharkan, Una Road, District Hoshiarpur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:039199-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Kanwarpal Singh Mahey
Respondents: Advocates Shreya Bublani, Sidhi Bansal, R. Kartikeya, Paramjit Singh Saini