Institutional Preference During Admissions Applicable On All Students, Can't Apply Distinction Based On Passing Year: Rajasthan High Court
While disagreeing with the judgment of a single judge the Rajasthan High Court held that the institutional preferences applied by institutes at the stage of admissions had to be applied to all the students who passed out from that institution, and there could not be any artificial distinction amongst those students based on year of passing.The Court was hearing a petition that challenged a...
While disagreeing with the judgment of a single judge the Rajasthan High Court held that the institutional preferences applied by institutes at the stage of admissions had to be applied to all the students who passed out from that institution, and there could not be any artificial distinction amongst those students based on year of passing.
The Court was hearing a petition that challenged a single bench decision that allowed carving out of a separate category of freshers within institution preference, by the National Institute of Ayurveda.
Due to this, even though the petitioner had higher merit than those given institutional preference, he was denied admission based on this separate category that favoured freshers. It was argued by the petitioner that he be either allowed to join the next academic session of the course or be granted compensation.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit however said that despite the disagreement with the single judge's judgment, relief of directing admission of petitioner would not be possible at this stage, since the time frame for admission was over.
Neither compensation could be an option since the matter did not pertain to appointment but admission.
“A claim for compensation in relation to the admission, has to be differently understood than those for appointments…we find that the observation regarding grant of compensation as an additional remedy, has been only noticed but not as a substitute for restitutional remedies. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to grant any compensation to the appellant.”
After hearing the contentions, the Court frowned upon creation of such artificial category based on the year of passing within institutional preference, and held that,
“…it may also create a chaotic situation where a candidate who has not passed examination in a particular year and in the subsequent year, and in the second attempt, he passes and clears the examination. Such a candidate, who may have failed in the previous year, may become eligible for institutional preference merely because he was passed out in the subsequent year, the purpose of institutional preference would thus fail.”
However, on the relief sought, the Court held that time in disposal of such takes took its own toll.
“We have sympathies with all the students, but since the case could not be taken up within the time frame during when the admission process was going on, in that particular year, we cannot turn back the clock and grant the appellant admission in the course.”
In relation to admission in next academic session, it was held that the appellant must have applied for next year's course, and if there were more meritorious candidates, they would have been already taken into consideration. The appellant could not claim this relief and take away right of a more meritorious candidates in that year.
Finally, on the demand of compensation, it was held that granting compensation was an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Hence, it was not appropriate to grant compensation in this matter that related to admission and not appointment.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
Title: Dr. Rafique Khan v National Institute of Ayurveda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 285