Admission cannot be cancelled without any wrongdoings of students: HC relief to AIIMS MSc Nursing candidates

Such an observation came from the Delhi HC bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan, while it set aside an Office Memorandum (OM) of AIIMS, New Delhi cancelling the admission of few M.Sc. Nursing students two months after their admission on the ground that their B.Sc. nursing results had been published later than the due date.

"Applying these authorities in the present case, it appears that the petitioners' documents were accepted by the respective centres of AIIMS, despite the fact that their qualifying examination results were declared one week later than stipulated in the Prospectus. The petitioners have prosecuted their studies for almost two months prior to issuance of the impugned OM dated 18.10.2021. There is no allegation that the petitioners had misrepresented or concealed any information from AIIMS - indeed, there cannot be, as the qualifying examination was conducted by AIIMS itself. Applying the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur17, in the present case also, the blame lies more upon the institution than the petitioners," the bench noted at this outset.

The case concerned petitioners, who are pursuing M.Sc. Nursing course at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi in the academic session 2021-2022.

The students had been admitted to the institute on the basis of the Prospectus, issued by the institute on 27.04.2021. Based on this, the students were issued offer letters on 18.08.2021 and thereafter they joined their respective courses on 24.08.2021 after being duly enrolled by the respective regional centre of AIIMS.

However, two months after the admission, the admission of these students got cancelled by the AIIMS Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2021. It was stated in the OM that the matter had been examined by the competent authority, and "due to discrepancy found in the admissions, it has been decided that all erroneous admissions mentioned below need to be cancelled".

The OM had mentioned referred to the fact that the B.Sc. Nursing final year result was declared on 7^th August 2021 beyond the cutoff date i.e. 31^st July 2021 (as mentioned in the Prospectus). Challenging the Officer Memorandum, the students filed the plea before the Delhi High Court.

Also Read: HC relief to PG medico who surrendered MD Psychiatry seat, says Medical Colleges can recover fees for one year only

By an interim order dated 28.10.2021, the students were granted interim relief of status quo with regard to their admissions. They have continued to study in their respective courses during the pendency of the writ petition.

During the course of the proceedings, the counsel appearing on the behalf of the students, Mr. Wills Mathews submitted that the cancelation of the petitioners' admission after they had joined the course, on the ground that they were ineligible for admission, is unwarranted and contrary to law.

He further submitted that no allegation of any wrongdoing has been leveled against the petitioner students and they have not been accused of any misrepresentation or suppression of facts, leading to the admission being granted despite their ineligibility.

In fact, all the students were students of AIIMS itself in the B.Sc. Nursing course, which is the qualifying examination in order to get admitted to M.Sc. Nursing courses. The counsel further contended that the delay in the results of their qualifying examination was not only known to AIIMS, but was actually a consequence of matters within its own control.

On the other hand, the counsel for AIIMS, Mr. Dushyant Parashar argued that the petitioner students didn't meet the eligibility criteria stipulated in the Prospectus requires candidates to have proof of passing the qualifying examination before 31.07.2021, whereas the results of the petitioners' qualifying examination was declared only on 07.08.2021.

He further referred to the fact that the Prospectus itself had contemplated that admissions would be provisional, and subject to cancellation at any time. Referring to this, the counsel for AIIMS argued that as the petitioner students were found to have been admitted despite their ineligibility, therefore, their admissions were liable to be cancelled.

At this outset, the counsel for AIIMS also pointed out that granting any relief to the petitioners would lead to a wholly iniquitous situation, as several other candidates, whose results were also declared on or before 07.08.2021, were rejected on the same ground.

Taking note of the submissions made by both the parties, the bench observed that the factual question in the present case was whether the admission of a candidate, even if he/she is erroneously admitted, is liable to be cancelled in the absence of any wrongdoing or default on the part of the candidate.

Mentioning that this question has been considered by the Supreme Court in several judgments, the HC bench referred to the top court judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University, and in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and Ors.

Apart from this, the bench also relied on the Delhi High Court order n the case of Javed Akhtar, where the situation was very similar as the candidature of the petitioners had been cancelled after the students had attended classes for one month.

"An academic institution cannot be permitted to cancel admissions after the course had started, at any time during the year, due to prejudice that would be caused to the candidates who were admitted as they would by then be unable to take admission in any other university to which they may have been admitted," the High Court had opined in that case.

Referring to these judgments, the Delhi HC bench observed, "Applying these authorities in the present case, it appears that the petitioners' documents were accepted by the respective centres of AIIMS, despite the fact that their qualifying examination results were declared one week later than stipulated in the Prospectus. The petitioners have prosecuted their studies for almost two months prior to issuance of the impugned OM dated 18.10.2021. There is no allegation that the petitioners had misrepresented or concealed any information from AIIMS - indeed, there cannot be, as the qualifying examination was conducted by AIIMS itself."

Holding the institute guilty, the bench noted, "Applying the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur, in the present case also, the blame lies more upon the institution than the petitioners. The candidates applied; their results were declared by AIIMS, New Delhi; those results were submitted to the regional centres to which they have been assigned, and they were granted admission. Their admissions were cancelled after they had spent almost two months on the course. The judgment of this Court in Javed Akhtar, in fact, goes further to hold that an academic institution cannot be permitted to cancel admissions after the course had started, at any time during the year, due to prejudice that would be caused to the candidates who were admitted as they would by then be unable to take admission in any other university to which they may have been admitted."

"Although there were express representations of the institutions to the candidates regarding their eligibility in some of the cases, I am of the view that the absence of such an express representation does not make much difference in the facts of the present case. No further representation was expected or required as there was no doubt as to the substantive conditions of eligibility stipulated in the Prospectus, although the result had come one week later than stipulated," the bench further noted.

At this outset, the High Court further asked the counsel for AIIMS about the fate of those seats if the candidatures of the petitioner students get cancelled. Responding to this, the counsel informed the bench that due to the lapse in time after the start of the course, those seats would remain vacant.

Further referring to Clause 9 in Section 13 of the Prospectus, the bench noted that it concerned admission "to the entrance examination" and opined, "In any event, even on the assumption that AIIMS was vested with the power to cancel the petitioners' admissions, for the reasons aforesaid, I have come to the conclusion that the power ought not to have been exercised in the present case."

Regarding the contention of the AIIMS counsel about the similarly placed candidates, the bench observed, "it is made clear that the present petition concerns a case of cancellation of admissions once granted, as dealt with in the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. The Court is not faced with a claim for admission by a candidate who has not been granted admission, which is contested as being contrary to the eligibility conditions contained in the admissions brochure. It is, therefore, not necessary to comment further on the fate of those other candidates in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Thus, the HC bench allowed the petition and set aside the OM, issued by AIIMS on 18.10.2021.

To read the court order, click on the link below.