In a decisive ruling, the Gujarat High Court reinstated the MBBS seat of an 18-year-old student at Narendra Modi Medical College, correcting what it deemed an unfair cancellation due to a procedural lapse. The student had paid her fees and even attended classes, but her admission was struck off when she failed to submit the Provisional Admission Order during the counselling process. As a result, her seat was marked as “vacant,” despite her academic merit and compliance in other respects.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai, hearing the matter, emphasised that the student’s mistake lacked any dishonest motive. She had relied on advice suggesting that once fees were paid, the submission of that particular document was not essential. The Court held that such a misunderstanding should not be fatal to her academic future, particularly given her merit, and that revoking the seat would unfairly benefit another candidate less deserving. The Court underscored that procedural rules should not lead to a draconian outcome where commendable students are deprived of the opportunity they earned.
To strike a balance between remedying the procedural flaw and preserving the integrity of the admission system, the Court imposed a nuanced, equitable solution. First, it required the student to commit to serving an additional six months in a rural posting following her MBBS, over and above the standard rural service obligation prescribed for medical graduates in Gujarat. This extra stint was framed as a corrective but reasonable consequence for the error—serving public interest without undermining the fairness of her reinstatement.
Second, the Court mandated a nominal payment of ₹ 5,000 by the student. Rather than serving as punishment, this fee was regarded primarily as a symbol of accountability, aimed at deterring future procedural negligence without derailing her medical career. The Court made it clear that the cost was not punitive in disproportion to her circumstances, but rather a proportionate response to her lapse.
Additionally, the Court instructed her to promptly submit the missing Provisional Admission Order and fulfil any outstanding formalities required by the college to regularise her admission fully. This ensures that her reinstatement is not merely conditional but is anchored in the completion of the necessary administrative requirements, thereby safeguarding both her place in the college and the procedural sanctity of the admission process.
In delivering its decision, the High Court reiterated that the enforcement of administrative rules must be tempered by reason and humanity. It criticised inflexible, mechanical application of formalities that punish students for genuine errors rather than willful misconduct. The Court asserted that the raison d’être of the admission scheme is to recognise and nurture merit—so when procedural lapses threaten to displace meritorious students, remedial justice must prevail.
Through this balanced judgment, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed the principle that justice in education must account for both regulatory rigor and individual circumstances. It has demonstrated that while rules are essential for fairness and transparency in medical admissions, they must not deny opportunities to earnest students for avoidable mistakes. The order preserves the student’s right to study medicine and contributes to a fairer and more empathetic legal-educational ecosystem.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.