In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition of Dhara Singh, who sought admission to the MBBS course under the Government School quota based on his merit in the 2023 NEET-UG examination. The case was heard by Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, who emphasized the importance of timely legal action for the protection of rights.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dhara Singh, a resident of Mandsaur and belonging to the OBC (Non-creamy layer) category, completed his schooling in a government institution and appeared in the NEET-UG 2023 examination, scoring 359 out of 720. Singh sought admission under the 5% Government School quota for the MBBS course for the academic session 2024-25, after failing to secure admission under this quota in the previous year. Singh did not challenge his non-selection at the relevant time but approached the court following a recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah & Others vs. State of M.P. & Others, where seven candidates from the SC/ST, OBC, and EWS categories were directed to be admitted in the subsequent academic session under the UR-GS seats.
Legal Issues and Arguments
Singh, represented by advocate Shri L. C. Patne, argued that he had scored higher marks than the seven candidates granted relief by the Supreme Court and, therefore, should also be allowed to participate in the admission process for the 2024-25 academic session. He contended that if not granted interim relief to participate in the counseling, his petition would be rendered ineffective.
However, the court observed that Singh did not approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court in the previous academic year when his admission was denied. It was noted that the seven candidates who were granted admission by the Supreme Court had approached the courts in a timely manner, thus receiving interim protection that reserved seats for them in the next session.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the necessity of timely legal recourse. The judgment stated:
“In absence of any such direction or interim relief in favour of the present petitioner, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered at this lateral stage.”
Justice Vivek Rusia, writing for the bench, emphasized the importance of timeliness in legal challenges:
“In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions.”
The bench further highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance from the case of S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2020) 17 SCC 465, which allows courts to mold relief in extraordinary cases where candidates approach promptly without delay. However, in Singh’s case, no such urgency was demonstrated.
The court concluded that since the petitioner did not act within the necessary timeframe, he could not be granted the relief sought. The judgment reaffirms the principle that equitable remedies are reserved for those who act diligently to assert their rights.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Dhara Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
– Case Number: Writ Petition No. 25113 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
– Counsel for Petitioner: Shri L. C. Patne
– Neutral Citation: 2024: MPHC-IND: 24458
