Ms. Aerika Kaushal vs Union of India and others

The petitioner appears to be unnecessarily dragged into this litigation which could have conveniently been avoided.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 11.7.2017 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Dental Council of India whereby the college authorities where the petitioner is studying has been asked to discharge her (petitioner) immediately on the ground that she has not qualified the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), 2016 Examination and her admission is in clear cut violation of Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2016.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner on 1.5.2016 appeared in NEET-I, however, in June, 2016, the said test was cancelled and thereafter the candidates, who had already appeared in NEET-I were asked to exercise their option for appearing in NEET-II. The petitioner after exercising option, appeared in NEET-II, the result whereof was declared on August, 2016. On the basis of the result so declared, the petitioner had duly qualified under the OBC category wherein the qualifying marks range indicated was 678/118 and the petitioner had secured 133 marks out of 720 marks.

As observed earlier, the petitioner was duly admitted, but thereafter was ordered to be discharged vide impugned order dated 11.7.2017 (Annexure P-6).

We need not to go into the various grounds that have been raised by the petitioner for assailing her discharge because respondent No.6 i.e. Himachal Pradesh University has candidly and rightly, in our opinion, admitted the claim of the petitioner. It has been averred that after exhausting the merit list notified by respondent No. 6 on the basis of NEET-2016 conducted by the CBSE, Delhi, the Director Medical Education & Research, H.P. had invited applications vide notice dated 24.09.2016 from the eligible and qualified candidates of NEET-2016 in order to fill up the vacant seats of BDS course in the private un-aided Dental Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh for the academic session 2016-2017.

In response to the said notice, many candidates had applied, which included the petitioner who had applied under Other Backward Classes category. The minimum qualifying marks for which category was 118 out of 720, whereas the petitioner had obtained 133 marks and as such, she had qualified the NEET-2016. However, in the meanwhile, one similarly situated candidate had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 8446/2016 titled Arnav Bhagirath vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, which was allowed in the following terms: "The endorsement by CBSE "Not Qualified in NEET-2016" based on the unreserved category of the All India ranking would not come in the way of State Authorities, in case the petitioner is otherwise qualified in any other category of the State/Institution, or in any other category, inter alia, reserved/OBC."

It has further been averred that the counselling was held on 29.9.2016 and the Counselling Committee headed by respondent No.3 i.e. the Director, Medical Education and Research had recommended the admission of the petitioner in BDS course under OBC category (State Quota) in M.N.DAV Dental College, Tatul, Solan. It is further conceded that even though there was an interim order passed by this Court on 17.8.2017 permitting the petitioner to appear in the 1st year BDS Examination. However, the petitioner on the strength of her admission and merit was otherwise eligible to appear in the said examination.

Once that be the admitted position, the decision taken by the Dental Council of India dated 11.7.2017 (Annexure P-6) is obviously not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly quashed and set- aside. Consequently, the resultant action of the M.N.DAV Dental College, dated 15.7.2017 (Annexure P-7) whereby the admission of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled on the basis of the Dental Council''s letter dated 11.7.2017 (Annexure P-6) also cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is, therefore, quashed and set-aside.

Resultantly, there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed. However, before parting, it needs to be observed that since the petitioner has appeared under the orders of the Court, her result shall be declared, if not already declared, alongwith the other candidates and no discrimination or step-motherly treatment shall be meted out to her, on the ground that she approached this Court for the redressal of her grievances.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.