Dismissal Of Case In Limine At Threshold Without Giving Detailed Reasons Doesn’t Constitute Declaration Of Law Or Binding Precedent Under Article 141: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court enunciated that the dismissal of a case in limine at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court enunciated thus in a batch of writ petitions, seeking direction to the authorities to produce the entire records necessary for adjudication and restraining from taking any adverse action or passing any consequential order, prejudicially affecting the admission of the students under the NRI quota for the MBBS Course.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “The impugned communication dated 18.10.2024 and the notice dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1 collectively to WPC No. 5322/2024) is discriminatory as, on the hand, it allows to continue with the studies to those candidates who have been admitted before 24.09.2024 and the candidates who have been admitted after 24.09.2024, their admissions have been put at stake, which amounts to playing with the future of the candidates which cannot be permitted and as such, the impugned communication as well as the impugned notice (both dated 18.10.2024) are quashed. … In view of the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court, dismissal of a case in limine at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench emphasised that the State cannot discriminate candidates fulfilling the same qualification/eligibility criteria merely on the basis of passing of a judgment by another High Court wherein another admission rules/provisions were under challenge and the Apex Court had merely dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment, in limine and not on merits.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha and Advocate Anurag Dayal Shrivastava appeared for the petitioners while Advocate General Prafull N Bharat and Advocate Kshitij Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Factual Background -

The petitioners were the students and had appeared in the entrance examination of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) 2024 for admission to the course of MBBS/BDS. The admission to the said course is governed by the provisions of the Rules, called as NEET UG (MBBS/BDS) CG Admission Rules 2018. The petitioners successfully cleared the examination and secured their position under the qualified candidates. The State had published a notice inviting online applications from qualified candidates for registration for admission in UG (MBBS/BDS) course for academic year of 2024. After first round of counselling, the first list of allotment of Colleges to the concerned candidates was issued and after completion of first round of counselling, notice was issued for second round of counselling and the time period for choice filling/locking was prescribed.

In the second round of counselling, the list of allotment was published and the petitioners were allotted the respective Colleges based on the choice made by them during the registration. The petitioners had submitted their candidature under NRI quota and were allotted the seat in the second round of counselling. They undertook the admission after completing formalities within the time prescribed in the notice and their classes had commenced. They were attending their classes regularly and surprisingly, a notice was published by the Commissioner, Directorate of Medical Education, by which instructions were issued therein for admission to the course of NEET UG 2024 regarding NRI quota. It was contended that admission to the said course under NRI quota which was taken prior to September 24, 2024 should be kept intact, whereas the admission which was taken after the said date should be scrutinized in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 20788 of 2024 and if the candidates are found ineligible, their admission be cancelled.

The High Court after hearing the arguments of parties, observed, “There is no disagreement with regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decision that rule of the game cannot be changed after its commencement. The petitioners had appeared in the NEET UG 2024 examination and secured their position as qualified candidates. At the time of their admission, the Admission Rule 2018 was in force and still remains as it is, therefore, the case of the petitioners would be governed by the Admission Rules, 2018 and there can be no deviation from that.”

The Court noted that the definition of NRI has been discriminated on the basis of cut-off date when the Apex Court had dismissed the SLP against the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in limine. It added that the candidates who have taken admission prior to September 24, 2024 are allowed to continue with their studies whereas the candidates who have taken admission after the said date, if their admission is found in violation of the order passed in CWP No. 20788 of 2024, their admissions may be cancelled.

“The candidates standing on the same footing cannot be measured by two different yardstick on the basis of cut of date i.e. 24.09.2024. It is hit by the principles of intelligible differentia. The definition of NRI has been considered differently for the two set of candidates i.e. the candidates who have taken admission prior to 24.09.2024 have been considered differently from the candidates have taken admission after admission prior to 24.09.2024 and after 24.09.2024. Applying these two different yard stick is arbitrary and illegal”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court remarked that, it is very surprising that when the judgment of the Constitution Bench was passed way back in the year 2005 which clarified as to who should be treated as the NRI and who should be given the seats under the NRI quota, the Chhattisgarh State has not bothered to take any steps to formulate any rule/policy with regard to grant of admission to the candidates under the NRI seats.

“The impugned communication dated 18.10.2024 and the notice dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1 collectively to WPC No. 5322/2024) is discriminatory as, on the hand, it allows to continue with the studies to those candidates who have been admitted before 24.09.2024 and the candidates who have been admitted after 24.09.2024, their admissions have been put at stake, which amounts to playing with the future of the candidates which cannot be permitted and as such, the impugned communication as well as the impugned notice (both dated 18.10.2024) are quashed”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions.

Cause Title- Rishi Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:41589-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha, Advocates Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Manoj Paranjpe, Chandresh Shrivastava, Anand Shukla, Atul Kumar Kesharwani, and Sangeeta Mishra.

Respondents: Advocate General Prafull N Bharat, Government Advocate Sangharsh Pandey, and Advocate Kshitij Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment