Justice Sameer Jain, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Where Procedural Requirement Is Directory & Candidate Meets Substantive Thresholds, Insistence On Technical Formality Undermines Object Of Admission Scheme: Rajasthan High Court
|The Petitioner had approached the Rajasthan High Court aggrieved by the fact that despite the allotment of a provisional seat at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, his candidature was summarily rejected.
While granting relief to a Unani student by restoring his provisionally allotted seat in the Rajasthan Unani Medical College, the Rajasthan High Court has explained the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance. The High Court observed that where a procedural requirement is directory and the candidate has otherwise met the substantive thresholds, strict insistence on a technical formality, particularly one frustrated by the authorities themselves, undermines the very object of the admission scheme.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court by instituting a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging unjust action of the respondents, whereby, despite the allotment of a provisional seat at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, and the timely deposition of the requisite fee, the candidature of the petitioner was summarily rejected during the counseling process.
The Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain said, “Courts while applying the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance have repeatedly held that where a procedural requirement is directory and the candidate has otherwise met the substantive thresholds, strict insistence on a technical formality, particularly one frustrated by the authorities themselves, undermines the very object of the admission scheme. The substantive requirement for a candidate's candidature was possession of documentary evidence of having passed the qualifying examination with the requisite subjects and percentage, with Biology being a principal subject. The Petitioner having fulfilled this condition was, therefore, eligible.”
Advocate Atul Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sandeep Bhandawat represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner participated in the centralized counselling process for admission to the Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery course for the academic session 2024–2025 and was provisionally allotted a seat at the aforementioned institution. Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner complied with all stipulated requirements, including the payment of the prescribed fee (Rs 25,000) within the designated time frame. However, the respondents invalidated the petitioner's candidature without affording any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to give admission to the Petitioner in the college as per the provisional allotment letter.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner is a young man, 28 years of age, who completed his Senior Secondary education with a focus on science in the year 2014. As per the Bench, the petitioner harbored a genuine desire to pursue a course of study in Unani Medicine and Surgery. The Petitioner, having established his eligibility, duly appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) 2024 (NEET UG-2024) and qualified in the said examination.
It was further noted that the counselling bulletin contemplated provisional allotment “subject to submission of originals on the notified dates.” It did not categorically stipulate that non-submission ipso facto neither would entail irrevocable cancellation, nor did it preclude the counselling Board from granting a short indulgence on a showing of sufficient cause.
The Bench noticed that the the Petitioner had furnished an undertaking/affidavit, demonstrating his bona fides and commitment to providing the original mark sheet upon its receipt and the petitioner had also approached the Court at an appropriate stage, i.e., before the cutoff date for the conclusion of admissions, while the stray rounds of counseling were still ongoing. The Bench was of the view that the respondents' actions in cancelling the petitioner's admission were unsustainable in law, and the interpretation of Clauses 23 and 31 of the NCISM directives, as canvassed by the respondents, was unduly restrictive and did not mandate the harsh consequence of automatic cancellation of admission.
Reference was also made to an interim order whereby keeping one seat vacant qua the petitioner was operative, and it was cautiously made clear that the delay that was being caused due to the adjournments sought by the respondent’s counsel shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner if the present petition was allowed.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered, “Adjust the fees already paid by the petitioner, in accordance with their directives, amounting to Rs. 25,000/-, towards the petitioner’s admission for the academic year pursuant to NEET UG-2024, and restore the petitioner to the provisionally allotted seat in Rajasthan Unani Medical College forthwith.”
Cause Title: Mohammad Anwar v. The Chairman, Rajasthan NEET Ayush UG/PG Counselling Board (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:20871)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Atul Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Sandeep Bhandawat, Sonia Shadilya, Akshat Sharma