Gujarat High Court Restores MBBS Student's Admission But Imposes 6 Months Additional Rural Service For Failing To Follow Procedure

The Gujarat High Court has allowed the petition of a meritorious student, whose admission in MBBS course was cancelled because she failed to follow the required procedure, subject to the condition that she would serve an additional 6 months in a rural area after completing her course. 

In doing so, the bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai observed that the 18-year-old student had a brilliant academic career and had not focused on other aspects of life, leading to her missing out on the procedure. However, such action should not prove costly to a meritorious student. 

The petitioner had completed all prescribed formalities to get admission in the MBBS course in N D Desai Faculty of Medical Science and Research, Nadiad. Subsequently, during her 3rd round of admission, she opted for Narendra Modi Medical College, where she was also granted admission. 

However, per the procedure laid down by the Admission Committee for Professional Under Graduate Medical Educational Course (committee), after downloading the allotment order, upon payment of fees, a student would be given a Provisional Admission Order, and upon submission of that Provisional Admission Order, only his or her admission would be reported in the system and the seat would be shown as filled up. 

The petitioner did not submit the Provisional Admission Order to the helpdesk, and therefore, her seat was shown as vacant in the committee's system. Subsequently, she was in a situation where her admission would be cancelled and the seat for which she had already paid would be allotted to someone else. 

Aggrieved, she approached the High Court for relief, claiming that it was a bona fide mistake and therefore her admission should not be rejected as it would ruin her career. Her counsel argued that although there are Rules and technicalities, the court could take a sympathetic view and direct her admission. 

The counsel for the State opposed the petition, arguing that the admission process is strictly governed by the Rules, and even minor deviations can invalidate a seat. 

The court observed that although the student was negligent in not following the procedure, there was no allegation of misconduct or malpractice against her. 

"The fact remains that the present petitioner has a brilliant academic career, and on that basis, she secured sufficient marks in the NEET examination to be considered for admission to the MBBS course", the bench noted. 

Additionally, the court acknowledged the negligent action of the petitioner, who failed to follow the prescribed procedure despite it being widely publicised by way of posters, hoardings and placards. 

However, the bench also emphasized:

"But at the same time, sometimes it so happens that a person who may be having a brilliant academic career has not focused on other aspects of life and therefore she has missed out the procedure, which must not prove costly to a meritorious student because ultimately, even if the Rules do not permit even the slightest deviation, if her admission is cancelled, the resultant effect would be that a meritorious candidate would be deprived of admission to the MBBS course and that seat would go to a less meritorious student, which ultimately is not in consonance with the scheme of admission, which is framed by the governing body". 

Therefore, the court directed the committee to regularize the admission of the petitioner in the fourth round of counselling as she was already allotted a seat earlier on the condition that she would serve an additional 6 months serving in a rural area after completion of her course, ober and above the already prescribed service.

The court therefore ordered; 

"If the rural areas of the State are going to get 6 months' additional service of a qualified medical doctor, in such circumstances, by imposing a token cost of Rs.5,000/-, such procedural lacuna, which can be solely attributed to the petitioner, can be cured according to this Court". 

Case Title: Patel Stuti Vishal Kumar v Union [SCA/15274/2025]

For Petitioner: Advocates Kruti Shah and Subham Jhajariya

For Union (respondents 1 and 2): Advocate Harsheel Shukla

For National Medical Commission (respondent no 3): Advocate Vikas Nair

For National Testing Agency (respondent no 4): Advocate K V Shelat

For Committee (respondent no 5): Additional Advocate General Manisha Lavkumar Shah with Kanva Antani

For Narendra Modi College (respondent no 6): Advocate Anuj Trivedi

Click here to read/download the Order

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 188