The Delhi High court said, “It is high time that backdoor entry in educational institutions should stop, lakhs of students work hard to get admission”.
According to the Supreme Court’s direction, students seeking admission in any government or private medical college have to undergo the centralised counselling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME) based on NEET examination results.
However, in 2016, five students were given admission to L N Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal without going through the centralised counselling conducted by the DME.
On April 26, 2017, the Medical Council of India (MCI) issued letters of discharge to the five students. But neither the college nor the students paid any attention to the communications sent by MCI. The five petitioners continued to attend the course and attended examinations, as allowed by the college.
Then, the five students filed a petition seeking cancellation of the letters of discharge issued by the MCI. They also sought permission to continue their studies in the medical college as regular students. But the single judge bench declared the petition as inadmissible.
Thereafter, the students filed an appeal against the decision of the single judge bench. But Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh again declared it inadmissible saying the admission was not given on merit basis.
What did Delhi High Court say on such backdoor entries?
The Delhi High Court expressed its concerns over such backdoor entries in colleges while dismissing the appeal by the 5 petitioners. The bench said:
- “It is time that such backdoor entries in educational institutions, including medical colleges, should stop. Lakhs of students from all over the country work hard to get admissions to these institutions based on their merit.”
- It further said “permitting backdoor entry to any such educational institution would be unfair to these meritorious students. They work hard but are denied admission, on account of the seats being taken and blocked by such backdoor entrants.”
- The bench further added “the petitioners are themselves responsible for the adverse circumstances they are facing. Had they taken the discharge letters issued by MCI seriously, it would have saved 4 years of their lives.”
- Advocate Tanoodbhav Singhdev, representing the MCI said neither the college nor the students took the communications from MCI seriously. The students continued to attend the course as regular students.
- Singhdev further added that the 5 petitioners have secured admission without undergoing the counselling conducted by the DME. The students were well aware that their admission to the college was illegal and also against the Supreme Court’s directions.
What did the counsel say in favor of the petitioners?
The counsel for the petitioners said that the students should be shown leniency as they ranked higher in the NEET examination than the students who were granted admission through the centralised counselling conducted by DME.
On this, the court stated, if the medical college had informed about the vacancies to DME on time, the DME would have sent names of deserving candidates on the basis merit list of the NEET examination conducted in 2016, after conducting the centralised counselling.
Eventually, the bench said, “It is quite possible that the names of other candidates, more meritorious than the five petitioners, may have been sent”.