Court slams culture of ‘backdoor entry’, says it insults meritorious students

Court slams culture of ‘backdoor entry’, says it insults meritorious students

5 medical students were barred from continuing their studies as they were issued letters of discharge four years ago as they did not undergo the centralised counselling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME), but neither them nor the college paid any heed to it.

Written by Shankhyaneel Sarkar | 

Edited by Poulomi Ghosh, 

Hindustan Times, New Delhi

UPDATED ON SEP 19, 2021 04:57 PM IST

The Delhi high court observed that it is necessary to stop the practice of backdoor entries in all categories of educational institutions. The court said this practice demeans millions of students across the nation who work hard and toil to secure admissions on the basis of merit.

“It is high time that such backdoor entries in educational institutions, including medical colleges, should stop. Lakhs of students all over the country work hard and toil to secure admissions to educational institutions on the basis of their merit,” a bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

The observation made by the court came while it dismissed an appeal by five students who were granted admission in 2016 by Bhopal's LN Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, but did not undergo the centralised counselling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME), which is a prerequisite set by the Supreme Court for admissions in all government and private medical colleges. The counselling is done on the basis of the NEET examination results.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) sent several letters of discharge to the students and the medical college but neither party paid any attention to them. Instead of discharging the students, the college treated the petitioners as students and allowed them to attend the course, sit for exams and also get promoted.

The students filed a petition seeking quashing of the discharge communications issued by the MCI and for a direction that they be permitted to continue their studies in the medical college as regular medical students. The petition was dismissed by a single judge which was challenged by the students. It was later quashed again by the Delhi high court when a bench led by justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh observed that the appeal lacked merit.

“To permit any backdoor entry to any educational institution would be grossly unfair to those who are denied admission, despite being more meritorious, on account of the seats being taken and blocked by such backdoor entrants,” the bench observed. The bench also said the petitioners are responsible for the mess they find themselves in. The court said that if the students would have paid heed to the letter and acted according to the discharge instructions in April 2017 then they could have saved four years of their lives. “They did not, and acted recklessly. Despite not having any interim orders in their favour in their writ petition, they continued to attend the course – obviously, at their own peril,” it said.

The MCI counsel T Singhdev said that no party paid heed to the warnings despite the authority issuing discharge letters as early as April 2017. He said that they continued to ignore it even after repeated communications. He also highlighted that the petitioners did not obtain any interim order from the court and continued to take admissions in subsequent years.

Singhdev said that they took examinations in the college at their own peril. He said that the petitioners were aware that their admission to the college was ‘irregular and illegal, being in the teeth of the judgement of the Supreme Court.’

The counsel for the petitioners requested that some leniency be given to them and contended that they ranked higher in the NEET examination than even those who were granted admission through the central counselling conducted by the DME in relation to the medical college.

The court said that if the medical college informed the DME on time regarding the vacant positions, the body would then have conducted further counselling and sent names on merit on the basis of the NEET examination conducted in 2016. “It is quite possible that the names of other candidates, more meritorious than the five petitioners, may have been sent,” the court said.

(with inputs from PTI)