Supreme Court of India
Irfan Akbani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 981 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). @ SLP(C) No. 26511/2019
IRFAN AKBANI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a peculiar facts and
circumstances. The appellants had completed their Bachelor
of Dental Surgery (BDS) course from the States of Karnataka,
Gujarat and Maharashtra.
3. They took admission for Master of Dental Surgery (MDS)
in the dental colleges situated in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. However, their admissions were cancelled by the
Regulatory Authority on the ground that they have not
participated in the counselling process and for being in
violation of the order passed by this Court dated
17.03.2016.
Signature Not Verified
4. The order of the Regulatory Authority cancelling
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.13
17:32:12 IST
Reason:
admission of the appellants was affirmed by the Appellate
Authority. Being aggrieved thereby the appellants had
1
approached the High Court.
5. The High Court granted an interim order by virtue of
which the appellants completed their MDS Course from 2016 to
2019.
6. After the appellants completed their MDS course, the
writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, upholding the order of the Regulatory Authority
as well as the Appellate Authority.
7. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Shri Saurabh Mishra,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Madhya
Pradesh and Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned senior counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2.
8. This appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Saurabh Mishra
and Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned senior counsel, on the
ground that the admission of the appellants is in violation
of the order of this Court as well as on account of them not
getting admission from the process of counselling and as
such they are backdoor entrants.
9. In the ordinary circumstances, we would not have
interfered with the impugned order. However, the fact
remains that the admission of the similarly situated
students who have completed their BDS from the same State
and the same college has not been disturbed on the ground
that they had completed their BDS from the State of Madhya
Pradesh.
10. No doubt that the principle of negative equality would
not be applicable while considering the grant of relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However,
the fact remains that similarly circumstanced students, who
have passed their BDS Course from the State of Madhya
Pradesh have got their Post Graduate Degrees (MDS Course).
11. Though, Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned senior counsel,
submits that insofar as the students from the State of
Madhya Pradesh are concerned there are only violations of
2
two factors; insofar as the appellants herein are concerned
there is a violation of three factors. Shri Saurabh Mishra,
learned senior counsel submits that in any case the
admissions of the former were not regularized by the State
but by the Regulatory Authority.
12. We find that the approach adopted by the Regulatory
Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate
Authority and the High Court to the effect that since the
number of illegalities in cases of the appellants were
higher than the number of illegalities in the case of the
students who have passed their BDS from the State of Madhya
Pradesh, the appellants admission would not be regularized,
is not a correct approach. In any case, the appellants have
completed the MDS course and they have successfully cleared
the examination.
13. It is commonly known that there is a dearth of super
specialty doctors even in the field of dental science. If
the admission of the appellants is not regularized the
education undertaken by them would go in waste. Therefore,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are
inclined to allow the appeal and quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the
orders passed by the Regulatory Authority and the Appellate
Authority. Ordered accordingly.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
15. The admission of the appellants is directed to be
regularized and the respondent(s)/Authorities are directed
to issue necessary degree(s) to the appellants.
16. Needless to state that as observed hereinabove, we are
passing the aforesaid order in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and it shall not be treated as a
precedent in any other matter.
3
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………J
( B.R. GAVAI )
…………………………J
( K.V. VISWANATHAN )
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 04, 2024
4