TEEKAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are connected and they address the issue of validity of admissions made by two colleges, namely, Desh Bhagat Dental College and Rayat Bahra Dental College cited as respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners in CWP No.1174 of 2014 are students admitted for the session 2013 to the graduate dental medical course with respondents 3 and 4 -Colleges affiliated to the

(2.) ND respondent -Baba Farid University. CWP No.1947 of 2014 is at the instance of the 3rd respondent in CWP No.1174 of 2014, namely, Desh Bhagat Dental College to challenge the decision of the University refusing to recognize the admission of the students that were admitted on 30.09.2013. 2. It is an admitted fact that none of the students admitted into the college had secured the marks prescribed in the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) which was conducted by the CBSE. There was a challenge to the NEET at the instance of unaided private institutions and minority run institutions that came to be decided by the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College Versus Union of India -2013(9) Scale 226 and other connected cases decided on 18.07.2013. The Supreme Court quashed the notifications issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India setting up the NEET under regulations of the year 2010. The Supreme Court held that as far as the private unaided professional colleges are concerned, it would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations relating to admission of both aided and unaided professional institutions. The Supreme Court, while quashing the petitions, held that it would not invalidate the actions taken under the amended regulation including the admissions already given on the basis of NEET conducted by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India and the same would be valid for all purposes.

(3.) WE have already seen the parting observation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College (supra) that has merely left the selection made on NEET to be not disturbed. In this case, if the petitioners had not the NEET qualification, there is nothing of the judgment to say that the selection was bad because the previous notification and the eligibility as set out requiring NEET qualification had been quashed. The subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court has rendered ineffective the earlier requirement as notified by the University. What the Supreme Court judgment protected was if there had been already an admission process which had been completed that would not be affected. The corollary cannot be that the persons who had not NEET qualification cannot secure admission if they are otherwise eligible. Such eligibility will have to be considered only from the point of view of the performance in 10+2 and that shall be the only criterion on which the admission could be directed to be made by an institute. The petitioners in CWP No.1174 of 2014, whether they had appeared in NEET or not or whether they qualified by NEET or not would all be taken to be eligible to secure an admission, unless they lacked the basic qualification of not having passed 10+2. I, will, therefore hold that the petitioners who have been admitted without reference to the notification in NEET must be taken as validly admitted.