REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6026 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17406 of 2006)

State of Maharashtra & Ors.      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors.       .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6027 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17832 of 2006)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

Leave granted in both SLPs.

C.A. No.6026/2008 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 17406/2006  

1

1) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and

final order dated 28.9.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 4515 of 2006, whereby the High

Court allowed the said writ petition directing the State - Directorate of

Medical  Education and Research (hereinafter  referred to as “DMER”)  to

consider Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal - respondent No.1 herein for giving

seat in Indira Gandhi Medical College (hereinafter referred to as “IGMC”),

Nagpur  by  shifting  Kirti  Shivajirao  Ruikar-respondent  No.2  herein  to

Government Medical College (hereinafter referred to as “GMC”), Yavatmal.

2) The facts, in brief, are as under:

On 31.03.2006, Information Brochure for medical courses in Government

Colleges in Maharashtra for the academic year 2006-2007 was published

and  accordingly  MHT-CET,  2006  was  conducted  on  21.05.2006

throughout Maharashtra.  First round for verification of documents and

filling of preference forms took place during 28.6.2006 to 6.7.2006 and

accordingly,  on the basis of the same,  final  allotments were made on

14.7.2006 thereby mentioning 21.7.2006 as the last date for joining.  In

the first round, admissions were given as under :

State Merit List No.

Name of Student Name of the College Quota

963 Sneha  Satyanarayan Agrawal  –  Respondent No.1  

Shri  Vasantrao  Naik Govt.  Medical  College, Yavatmal

70% Regional

2

869 Kirti  Shivajirao  Ruikar  – Respondent No.2

Shri  Vasantrao  Naik Govt.  Medical  College, Yavatmal

30%  State

844 Deepika  Nandkumar Mishra – Respondent No.3

Govt.  Medical  College, Miraj

30%  State

In IGMC, Nagpur, twelve seats for women open category were vacant, and

as per the Rule, 30% seats have to be filled up from State and 70% seats

have to be filled up from Region i.e. four seats from State and eight seats

from Region have to be filled up. On 24.8.2006, in the second round of

counseling, considering vacant seats and the preference as given by the

candidates  in  the  Preference  Form,  two  candidates,  namely,  1)  Purbi

Rabindra Acharya (SML No. 634)  – who was admitted in Indira Gandhi

Medical  College,  Nagpur  in  30% State quota,  preferred and joined B.J.

Medical College, Pune and 2) Anuradha Kamalkishore Rathi (SML No. 703)

who was also admitted in India Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30%

State quota preferred and joined Government Medical College, Nagpur.

Therefore,  two  seats  in  30%  State  quota  were  vacant.   Accordingly,

Deepika Mishra, SML No. 844 and Kirti Ruikar, SML No. 869 were given

admission against the vacant seats. In view of the same, seats in their

earlier  places  were  vacant  and  two  candidates  were  accommodated.

Second round of admissions was finalized on 24.8.2006 and the list was

published  on  25.8.2006  mentioning  30.8.2006  as  the  last  date  for

joining.    On  28.8.2006,  respondent  No.1  herein  submitted  a

representation  to  DMER  by  fax  informing  that  the  admissions  of

3

respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are in violation of Rules depriving her to exercise

her higher preference and betterment.  However,  no action was taken.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  conduct  of  the  Government,  respondent  No.1

approached  the  Bombay  High  Court,  Nagpur  Bench  by  filing  a  writ

petition.   On  15.9.2006,  respondent  No.1  herein  filed  an  application

impleading  Deepika  Mishra  as  a  party  respondent  and  the  same was

allowed.   On  28.9.2006,  after  hearing  the  parties,  the  High  Court

disposed of the writ petition, by pronouncing only operative part of the

judgment,  thereby  directing  DMER to  consider  shifting  of  Kirti  Ruikar

from  Indira  Gandhi  Medical  College,  Nagpur  to  GMC,  Yavatmal  and

shifting of Sneha Agrawal, respondent No.1 herein from GMC, Yavatmal

to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur.  Later on, on 12.10.2006, full

judgment was delivered.  In the meantime, the entire admission process

was  over.   Challenging  the  judgment  dated  28.9.2006,  the  State  of

Mahrashtra has filed the present appeal by way of special leave petition

before this Court.     

Civil Appeal No.6027/2008   @   S.L.P.(c) No. 17832 of 2006    

3) This appeal  has been filed by respondent  No.1 in S.L.P.  (C)  No.

17406 of 2006 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay,  Nagpur Bench,  dated 28.9.2006 in  Writ  Petition No.  4515 of

2006 challenging the judgment on the ground that the High Court has

not  issued  any  direction  to  correct  the  error  committed  by  the

4

respondents.

4) Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel, appearing for

the appellants and Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, learned counsel, appearing for

the respondents.   

5) The  contention  of  the  first  respondent  herein,  before  the  High

Court, was that while preparing merit list of the second round of IGMC

Women Category candidates, first four seats must go to the 30% category

and next eight seats must go to the 70% category i.e.,  State List  and

Regional List respectively.   It was also her claim that in terms of Rule

2.3.1  of  Information  Brochure  of  Preference  System for  admission  to

Health Science Courses of MHT-CET, 2006 published by the Directorate

of Medical  Education and Research, this  pattern has to be followed in

each round while  filling up seats in any College/Institute.   It  was her

further claim that every vacant seat is required to be filled in on the basis

of the merit and the preference taken together and no single factor can

be operated at any point of time i.e., at any later round.  It was also the

claim of the first respondent that while considering the preference for

betterment, the seats meant for 30% quota and 70% quota cannot either

way be  altered and the seats  meant for  30% quota must be filled up

according to merit depending on the preference from that category only.   

6) On the other hand, it was the claim of the Competent Authority that

the procedure carved out by the Directorate of  Medical  Education and

5

Research in the Information Brochure of Preference System for admission

to Health Science Courses MHT-CET, 2006 has been strictly followed and

it was followed from the very beginning.  The Authority also denied the

contention of the writ petitioner – first respondent herein, that there was

any deviation from the rules which is part and parcel of the procedure for

admission to MHT-CET, 2006.

7) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the

Information  Brochure  of  Preference  System  for  admission  to  Health

Science Courses  (MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BUMS/BPTh/BOTh/BASLP/BP&O/B.Sc.

[Nursing]) MHT-CET-2006 issued by the Directorate of Medical Education

and Research, Government of Mahrashtra.  Among the various Rules, the

following rules are relevant in the present case:

“1.4  DISTRIBUTION  OF  SEATS  TO  BE  ALLOTTED  BY  THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

1.4.1 After excluding the seats as provided in Para 1.2 and 1.3; the remaining seats will be at the disposal at the Competent Authority & available for candidates of the State for Selection in the following manner.

1.4.2 Out  of  the  seats  at  the  disposal  of  the  Competent Authority, 30% of such seats in Colleges will be made available for candidates from the State and these seats will be filled on the basis of State Merit List.  There will be constitutional, specified and female reservations in these seats as per rules.  

1.4.3 The  seats  for  BUMS,  BPTh,  BOTh,  BASLP,  BP&O  and B.Sc. (Nursing) courses will be filled by the candidates from the State Level Merit List only.

1.4.4 Distribution of Seats in 70% Category After the exclusion of State Level seats mentioned at

6

Para 1.4.2 the remaining 70% seats will be filled from amongst  the  Candidates  who  have  passed  HSC  (or equivalent  examination)  from  the  Schools/Colleges situated in the region of the concerned Development Board  i.e.  Rest  of  Maharashtra,  Vidarbha  and Marathwada.   There  will  be  constitutional,  specified and female reservations for these seats as per rules.  

1.6 RESERVATION FOR FEMALE CANDIDATES:

30% seats at the disposal of the Competent Authority shall  be  reserved  for  female  candidates  in  all  the courses.  This reservation shall be for all the categories like SC, ST, VJ, NT-1, NT-2, NT-3, OBC, Common, HA, PH & DEF.  30% female reservation shall be provided in 30% State seats & 70% regional seats of that category. If  requisite  number  of  female  candidates  are  not available  then  these  seats  shall  be  offered  to  male candidates of that category.  

2. SELECTION PROCESS:

2.1 The selection will be made on the basis of preferences given by  the  candidates.   Only  a  limited  number  of meritorious candidates  will  be  called for  Counselling and  asked  to  fill  the  preference  form.   Counselling sessions are not meant for  instant seat  allocation at these  offices.   During  these  sessions candidates  are helped  in  exercising  their  preferences  for  various courses, and the institutions.  Seat allocation shall be made centrally at a later  date on the basis of  MHT- CET-2006 merit list and preferences exercised by the candidates.

2.2 Selection Process shall be as follows:

The preference form shall  be available at the office of the Regional  Centre  as  per  notified  schedule.   The  duly  filled preference form should be submitted at the same office.  

Xxx xxx xxxx

2.2.3 The  candidates  may  kindly  note  while  filling  the preference form that MHT-CET-2006 merit list will be operated from SML number 1 onwards in each round of

7

selection.  The candidate getting selected in previous round  will  be  considered  for  betterment  in  the subsequent round.  The betterment herein means the higher  preference  exercised  by  the  candidate.   The Shift  in  such  betterment  shall  be  compulsory  and mandatory  except for  those  who  have  filled  ‘Status Retention Form.’  Such a candidate who has filled Status Retention  form  will  not  be  considered  for  any subsequent  rounds  of  selection process  for  the year 2006-2007.  The last date for filing Status Retention Form will be notified along with the selection list.

2.3.1 While filling the seats for any college/Institution state seats  (30%)  shall  be  filled  first  followed  by  regional seats (70%).  The seats for the MKB shall be available as  per  state  merit  list  only.   The  seats  for  Defence category shall be allotted regionwise.  

2.6 Seats that have arisen or fallen vacant after  the first round shall be made available at the second round of selection  on  the  basis  of  preference  form  already submitted.  No new preference form will be required for any subsequent round(s).  The vacancy position will be  made  available  on  website  of  DMER  i.e. www.dmer.gov.in before  commencement  of  the  next round.”    

In the counter affidavit as well as written notes, the Competent Authority

–  the  Director  of  Medical  Education  and  Research,  Mumbai  asserted

before the High Court that it has strictly carried out the entire admission

process in accordance with the above-mentioned Rules and also placed

before the High Court the first and the second list of selection as well as

the list of vacancies arising in various colleges after the first round and

those who are filled up in the second round and also placed on record the

preference  forms  of  the  writ  petitioner,  respondent  No.3  as  well  as

8

candidate at Serial Nos. 9 & 10 in the list of IGMC, Nagpur.  We have

carefully  scrutinized  the  relevant  documents  in  the  light  of  the  Rules

applicable to issue in question.  It is clear that the seats as per Rule 1.4

are to be distributed by the Competent Authority except the seat relating

to nominees of the Government of India and of AIEE quota.  As per the

said Rule, the Competent Authority, out of the seats at its disposal, is

required to make available 30% seats in the colleges for the candidates

from the State and these seats are to be filled up on the basis of State

Merit List.  The Competent Authority is also expected to fill up 70% seats

from the candidates who have passed HSSC or equivalent examination

from Schools/Colleges situated in (A) rest of Maharashtra (R),(B) Vidarbha

(V) and (C) Marathwada(M).  It is pertinent to mention that any candidate

in the State of Maharashtra is entitled to compete in the MHT-CET-2006

and claim the seat from 30% quota.  70% quota is meant for candidates

coming from the respective regions and the objective of this distribution

is to see that regional candidates get their share in the admission process

in  their  respective  regions.   As  explained  by  learned  senior  counsel

appearing for the appellants, a candidate is not categorized either in 30%

or 70% but the seats are categorized as 30% meant for all the candidates

and 70% meant for regional candidates only.  The concept of 30% and

70% is followed as provided in Rule 2.3.1 wherein while starting filling up

of seats in  any institution/college 30% seats belonging to State  quota

9

should be filled in first followed by 70% regional seats which should be

done on the basis of the State Merit List.  A candidate with the higher

number of marks is placed at Serial No.1 and the merit list goes in a

descending fashion.  Information Brochure shows that the candidates, at

the time of their application, are required to fill in the Preference Form

and may give as much as 52 preferences in the allotted colleges.  While

giving preference, the candidate selects colleges on the basis of its status

and reputation and the choices  are  irrespective  of  the area or  region

where the college is situated.  As per Rule 2.2.2, the selection will be on

the basis of merit and the preferences submitted by the candidates in

their Preference Form.  It also contemplates that there shall be two or

more rounds of selection process, depending on the availability of vacant

seats.  It is demonstrated before us that by keeping this method in mind,

the  Competent  Authority  published  first  list  of  students  selected  for

Health  Science  Course  through  MHT-CET-2006.   The  information

furnished  by  the  Competent  Authority  shows  that  it  had  2060  seats

available for MBBS Course, out of which 307 and 15 seats are for All India

quota and Government of India nominee respectively.   The Competent

Authority, therefore, has 1738 seats at its disposal for MBBS Course.  It

further shows that this number will increase if out of All India quota the

seats are surrendered to be calculated in 30% State quota and if any seats

from Government of India nominee are surrendered to be calculated in

1

70% Regional quota.  The Competent Authority published its first list on

13.7.2006 and according to it, the said list goes strictly on the basis of

State Merit List and mentions the criteria as to whether the candidate is

from rest  of  Maharashtra,  Marathwada  or  Vidarbha.   It  mentions  the

marks obtained by the candidates and the category from which they are

considered  and  also  specify  the  State  or  Regional  quota  where  the

candidate belong.  The first list published on 14.7.2006 reads as under:

ADMISSION TO HEALTH SCIENCE COURSE – 2006-07 (1ST ROUND)

INDIRA GANDHI GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, NAGPUR (Annexure-P2)

Sr. No.

State Merit No.

Name of Student Sex CET Mark s

Regio n  

Catego ry

Quota

1. 634 Acharya  Purabi

Rabindra  

F 186 R Open 30%  W Open  

2. 703 Rathi Anuradha  Kamalkishor  

F 186 V Open 30%  W Open  

3. 706 Malpani Priyamvada Praveen  

F 186 V Open 30%  W Open  

4. 718 Kothari Megha F 186 V Open 30%  W Open  

5. 732 Deshmukh Snehal  Subhash  

F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

6. 748 Sharma Pragya Sudhir F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

7 761 Yadav Suman Dhanpat F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

8. 770 Rathi Bharti Mohanlal F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

9. 792 Bagga Chandni Baldev F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

10. 802 Pratapan Priya P.G.  Pratapan  

F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

1

11. 904 Pahlajani  Neemal

Haresh  

F 184 V Open 70%  W Open  

12. 940 Ruhatiya Shradha  Omprakash  

F 184 V Open 70%  W Open  

As  rightly  pointed  out  by  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the

appellants,  a  perusal  of  the  list  clearly  shows  that  the  Competent

Authority, in accordance with Rule 2.3.1, has first filled up the 30% State

seats and then filled up 70% Regional seats.  It was explained to us that

this was done while making allotment of seats in each and every college.

8) After  the  first  round of  selection,  the  candidates  go for  second

round of selection for filling up the seats which have become vacant due

to non-joining of  a candidate,  cancellation of  admission and All  India

surrendered seats (15%).  Above-mentioned seats are to be filled up as

per Rule 2.6 and are to be operated on the basis of State Merit List and

the Preference Form filled in at the very beginning.  It is pointed out that

a  candidate is  eligible  for  the vacant  seats  to be  filled  in the second

round if (a) have joined and not cancelled the admission (Rule 2.5), (b)

have joined and not retained the admission (Rule 2.2.3), (c) are getting

admission  to  a  higher  preference  (Rule  2.2.3)  and  (d)  did  not  get  a

college of his choice in the previous round.  Considering the above-said

Rules and procedures for  filling up of  the seats in  second round,  the

Competent  Authority  published a  list  of  candidates selected to Health

Science Courses in second round on 25.8.2006 which reads as under:   

1

ADMISSION TO HEALTH SCIENCE COURSE – 2006-07 (IInd ROUND)

INDIRA GANDHI GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, NAGPUR (Annexure-P3)

Sr. No.

State Merit No.

Name of Student Sex CET Mark s

Regio n  

Catego ry

Quota

1. 706 Malpani  Priyamvada

Praveen  

F 186 V Open 30%  W Open  

2. 718 Kothari Megha  F 186 V Open 30%  W Open  

3. 732 Deshmukh  Snehal Subhash  

F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

4. 748 Sharma Pragya Sudhir F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

5. 761 Yadav Suman Dhanpat F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

6. 770 Rathi Bharti Mohanlal F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

7. 792 Bagga Chandni Baldev F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

8. 802 Pratapan Priya P.G.  Pratapan  

F 185 V Open 70%  W Open  

9 844 Mishra Deepika  Nandkumar

F 185 R Open 30%  W Open  

10. 869 Ruikar Kirti Shivajirao F 184 M Open 30%  W Open  

11. 904 Pahlajani  Neemal

Haresh  

F 184 V Open 70%  W Open  

1

12. 940 Ruhatiya Shradha  Omprakash  

F 184 V Open 70%  W Open  

The details furnished above relating to second round admission clearly

show that it is operated on the basis of merit with State Merit List No.1 at

the top and so on.  In the last column, the status of the candidates has

been  furnished.   The  above  mentioned  second  selection  list  shows

shifting  of  the  candidates  on  the  basis  of  their  merit  list  and  their

preferences given for a college,  which would amount to betterment in

terms of Rule 2.2.3.  It is relevant to mention that in IGMC, Nagpur there

are twelve seats available for women candidates and out of which four

seats go to 30% State quota whereas eight seats goes to 70% Regional

quota as per Rule 1.4.2,  1.4.4 and 1.6.   In the list pertaining to first

round, the candidate at the first serial is Acharya Purabi Rabindra who

was admitted in IGMC, Nagpur on the basis of her State Merit List and

preference number in the first round.  She is from rest of Maharashtra

and, therefore, while admitting her in Nagpur she was treated as 30%

women.  In the second round, she secured a seat at BJMC, Pune as it was

for her betterment and higher choice of preference.  Therefore, she was

shifted to BJMC, Pune from 30% women open for Indira Gandhi Medical

College, Nagpur falling vacant.  The second candidate in the same first

round  with  State  Merit  List  708  Rathi  Anuradha   belong  to  Vidarbha

region who was admitted in IGMC, Nagpur in 30% women open seats for

1

betterment  and on a  seat  at  IGMC,  Nagpur  falling vacant  as  she  was

shifted to GMC, Nagpur.  By her shifting second seat of 30% women seat

fall vacant at IGMC, Nagpur.  It was highlighted that the candidates from

State Merit List 706 to 802 who secured admission in IGMC, Nagpur did

not get an opportunity to shift according to their preference and since

shifting is permissible only if the candidates go for betterment and this

being not available, the candidates with State Merit List 706 to 802 were

placed  as  it  is  in  second  round  admission  list.   After  802,  the  first

candidate with State Merit List 844 who was at GMC, Miraj admitted in

first round on the basis of her merit and on the basis of her preference

being at IGMC, Nagpur and the seat at IGMC, Nagpur falling vacant due to

shifting of Acharya Purabi Rabindra, was shifted to IGMC, Nagpur.  It was

explained since Deepika Mishra was from the rest of Maharashtra, when

she came to Nagpur her status changes from 70% to 30%, hence she was

placed  in  the  vacant  seat  created  due  to  shifting  of  Acharya  Purabi.

Another seat, which had fallen vacant due to shifting of Rathi Anuradha,

which had fallen vacant, accommodated as the next woman candidate K.

Rulkar with State Merit List 869 who is from Marathwada but admitted to

Yavatmal  Medical  College  along  with  the  first  respondent  herein/writ

petitioner on the basis of her preference is shifted to IGMC, Nagpur as

the seat which had fallen vacant.  Thereafter, the candidates with State

Merit List 904 and 940 were already admitted in IGMC, Nagpur in the first

1

round who did not have any option to shift as there was no seat available

in the College/quota  of  their  higher  preferences  were  retained  in  the

same College.  The above details demonstrate the operation of list of first

round and second round (Annexure P2 and P3).  

9) The scrutiny of the above details, particularly, admission list in the

first round and second round clearly show that the Competent Authority

has strictly followed the rules relating to admission and the procedure of

admitting  the  students  on  the  basis  of  the  State  Merit  List  and  the

preferences.   As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  State  counsel,  the  more

meritorious candidate is entitled to exercise preference first depending

on the creation of vacancy in a particular college after the first round and

at the end of the final selection, the Competent Authority has to ensure

that they have filled in 30% seats from the State quota and 70% seats

from the Regional quota.  We are satisfied with the writ petitioner/first

respondent herein being less meritorious than respondent Nos. 2 and 3

herein cannot be given seat at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur as

claimed by her.   A perusal  of the list  of candidates (first  and second

round – Annexure P2 and P3) admitted in women reservation category

and their SML numbers show that not a single student has been admitted

in this category that is lower in merit than the first respondent herein.  It

is relevant to mention that in the State Merit List the first respondent,

namely,  Sneha  Satyanarayan  Agrawal  is  963  and  the  last  candidate

1

admitted in this category is that SML 940 (Ruhatiya Shradha Omprakash –

vide second round list – Annexure-P3)

10) For the sake of brevity,  we point out that,  Rule 1 prescribes for

distribution of seats.  Rule 1.4 provides for distribution of seats to be

allotted by the competent authority which includes 30% seats to be made

available for the candidates from the State to be filled on the basis of

State Merit List and 70% seats to be filled from the candidates situated in

the region i.e. Regional list.  Rule 1.6 deals with reservation for female

candidates and Rule 2 prescribes selection process post and preference

given by the candidates.  Apart from the above rules other relevant rules

are 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 which relate to selection process on the basis

of preference by the candidates.  In accordance with the rules, 30% of the

seats available to be filled from State Merit List and remaining 70% to be

filled from Regional quota, therefore, the mandates of Rules, 1.4.2, 2.2.2

and 2.2.3 which clarifies that allotment of seat is required to be done

strictly on the basis of merit and preferences submitted by the candidates

in  their  respective  forms.   Rule  2.2.3  also  requires  the  competent

authority to follow the said procedure of allotment of seats not only in

the first round of admission but also in each round of admission, in such

circumstances  firstly  merit  of  the  candidates  is  to  be  considered  and

then, preferences exercised by him or her while allotting seat to such

candidate in the concerned college. In the case on hand, in IGMC, Nagpur

1

twelve  seats were available for  allocation in 30% State quota and 70%

Regional quota in the second round of admission.  Out of these twelve

seats, four seats were reserved for 30% State Quota which are to be filled

on the basis of State Merit List and rest on the basis of 70% Regional

quota and that too on the basis of merit out of four seats meant for 30%

State Quota and in IGMC, Nagpur two seats fell vacant and accordingly

these seats required to be filled by the Competent Authority on the basis

of State Merit List.  As pointed out earlier, respondent No.1 herein was

given merit position 963 in the State Merit List and respondent No.2 Kirti

Shivajirao  Ruikar  was  at  869  in  the  State  Merit  List.   Therefore,

respondent No.1 is much below in the merit position from respondent

No.2  and  also  from the  other  candidates.   Respondent  No.3  Deepika

Nandkumar Mishra who stood at position No. 844 in the State Merit List

and, therefore, respondent No.1 herein was rightly allotted admission in

GMC at Yavatmal as she ranks below in merit position in comparison to

respondent  Nos.  2  and  3  herein.   As  stated  earlier,  the  Competent

Authority  has strictly  followed the rules  relating to admission and the

more meritorious candidates are entitled to exercise the preference first

depending  on  the  creation  of  vacancy  in  particular  college  after  first

round.  In addition, the Competent Authority has to ensure that the quota

system of 30% and 70% is maintained.  Therefore, respondent No.1 being

less meritorious than respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be given seat at

1

IGMC, Nagpur.  In our view, the High Court failed to take note of the

above relevant aspects and as such the impugned direction of the High

Court  cannot  be  implemented  as  the  same  will  have  far-reaching

consequences on the entire admission process of Health Science Course

in Maharashtra State.  Further, it will run counter to the law laid down in

Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 258, as the

cut-off date-30.09.2006 was already over and no shifting at this belated

stage was permissible as per Medical Council of India’s regulations which

were held to be mandatory.  In our considered opinion, the High Court

has  misinterpreted  the  Rules  particularly  with  reference  to  Preference

System of MHT/CET, 2006.   

11) In the light of what has been stated above, the impugned judgment

and  final  order  dated  28.09.2006  in  Writ  Petition  No.  4515  of  2006

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur is set

aside.  Consequently, the said writ petition filed by Sneha Satyanarayan

Agrawal before the High Court is dismissed.

12) In the result, Civil Appeal No.6026/2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C)

No.  17406/2006)  filed  by  the  State  of  Maharashtra  and  Ors.  stands

allowed.   In  view  of  the  above  conclusion,  the  other  Civil  Appeal

No.6027/2008 (arising out  

1

of S.L.P.(C) No. 17832 of 2006) filed by Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal for

issuance of certain directions is dismissed.  No order as to costs in both

the appeals.                

         .….........……CJI                                          (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

   ...………………………J.                                            (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; October 01, 2008.     

2