Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7940 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.25931 OF 2013)

Dr. Kulmeet Kaur Mahal & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus  

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the  

Punjab & Haryana High Court in Review Application No.89  

of  2013 in  LPA No.1070 of  2013,  by which the Division

Page 2

2

Bench of the High Court  clarified its earlier order dated  

25.7.2013 stating as follows :-

“We  thus  clarify  that  there  has  not  to  be  disturbance of the already allocated seats in the  general  category  but  whatever  further  seats  remain  vacant  and/or  are  spill  over  from  60%  quota, the RMOs will also compete with the only  difference that there would be weightage given  to them as per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of  India Regulations.”

3. Appellants,  who are nine in  number and not  made  

parties to the Review Petition, have questioned the order  

of the High Court on the following questions of law :-

I. Whether the impugned order passed by the  Hon’ble High Court is sustainable in the teeth of  law  laid  down  by  this  Hon’ble  Court  in  CA  No.5705-5706 of 2012 Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors.  Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. vide judgment dated  03.08.2012 since,  in the said case this Hon’ble  Court  was  pleased  to  quash  the  clause  of  prospectus  (to  the  extent  that  it  provided  for  weightage  to  in-service  candidates  inspite  of  there being a reservation of seats for them to the  extent of 50%) and held it to be ultra vires?

II. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have  expanded  the  scope  of  a  writ  petition  while  deciding a Review Application by creating a new  category  of  candidates  of  RMOs  by  giving  additional  weightage  of  marks  to  them on  the  basis of their tenure of service within 40% open  category seats for MD Course admissions?

Page 3

3

III. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have  framed a  new policy/new criteria  without  there  being any provisions for the same either in the  prospectus  issued  by  Baba  Farid  University  and/or  in  the  Regulations  issued  by  Medical  Council of India, and which is contrary to the law  laid down by this Hon’ble Court?

IV. Whether the Hon’ble High Court could have  laid  down  new  rules  for  admission  to  Post  Graduate Medical Courses midway i.e. before the  second counselling for the State of Punjab was to  take place?

4. Shri Shyam Devan, learned senior counsel appearing  

for the Appellants, submitted that the High Court was not  

justified  in  granting  the  substantial  reliefs  in  a  review  

application  filed  in  a  dismissed  appeal,  confirming  the  

judgment of the learned Single Judge.   By the impugned  

order,  the  learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  has  created  a  new  

category of in-service candidates, and granted reservation  

carving out  the same for  the 40% quota earmarked for  

general category candidates for admission to MD course.  

At best they could seek a claim only for the 60% quota  

earmarked  for  in-service  candidates  and that  itself  is  a  

moot question.  The learned senior counsel, in support of

Page 4

4

his  contention  placed  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  this  

Court in Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors.  Vs. State of Orissa  

&  Ors.,  (2012)  8  SCC  203.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that  the RMOs cannot  infiltrate into  the 40%  

quota  earmarked  for  the  general  category  candidates  

depriving appellants of their choice of subject or college.   

5. Shri  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned senior counsel appearing  

for  the RMOs submitted that  the impugned order  in  no  

way deprives admission of the appellants, nor takes away  

their  choice  of  subject  or  the  college.   Learned  senior  

counsel  tried  to  demonstrate  the  same by  producing  a  

chart which throws considerable light on his plea.   Shri  

Patwalia, learned senior counsel also submitted that even  

on merits the appellants have no case nor on equity.   

6. We are of the view that the order passed by the High  

Court in the review application, as a matter of fact does  

not deprive the right of the appellants in getting admission  

into  their  preferred  colleges  or  favourite  subjects,  even  

though we have our own reservation about the manner in  

which the High Court has entertained the review petition

Page 5

5

and  granted  the  reliefs.    But  since  the  rights  of  the  

appellants are not adversely affected and the appellants  

and the RMOs have already been admitted to the various  

colleges and the counselling is also over, it would not be in  

the  interest  of  justice  to  disturb  the  admission  of  the  

appellants or the contesting respondents.    

7. We also find no reason to entertain the application for  

impleadment, which was filed after a period of one month  

from  the  date  of  passing  of  the  impugned  order.    In  

academic matters, the time limit has to be strictly viewed  

and against the impugned order,  candidates, if  had any  

grievance,  ought  to  have  approached  this  Court  at  the  

earliest  opportunity,  which  they  did  not.   In  such  

circumstances,  we  find  no  reason  to  entertain  the  

Impleadment Application.   

8. We, however,  do not propose to give our stamp of  

approval to the clarification issued by the High Court in  

the  review  application,  which  we  order,  would  be  

restricted to the facts  of  this  case.   Therefore,  all  legal

Page 6

6

questions  arising  out  of  that  order  are  left  open  to  be  

decided in an appropriate case.

9. The  appeal,  therefore,  stands  dismissed,  so  also  

application for impleadment.   There shall be no order as  

to costs.

………………………………J.       (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

….……………………………J. (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER  11, 2013.