Amritsar medical college, principal fined ₹1L for cancelling MBBS admission

The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined Government Medical College at Amritsar and its principal ₹1 lakh for illegally cancelling admission of an MBBS course aspirant. The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel also saddled Punjab government with a compensation of ₹50,000 to be paid to the petitioner student, Samarveer Singh, while making it clear that the amount can be recovered from the erring officials.

“The present case is an illustration of how litigations are pursued on behalf of the state, in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance and judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system,” the bench observed underlining that repeat of the same could only be prevented if penalty is imposed.

Based on score in NEET exam, Singh was allotted a seat by Baba Farid University, Faridkot, the nodal institute for conducting counselling for MBBS course, at Government Medical College at Amritsar under the freedom fighters’ category on August 31, 2024. He was issued a provisional admission slip on September 3, 2024, after verification of documents. However, principal of the college on October 10 wrote to BFUHS seeking clarification regarding the admission as Singh’s father was an adopted child of freedom fighter category. The BFUHS registrar directed the college to allow the student to continue. But on October 22 the college again wrote to BFUHS to which the BFUHS reiterated its stand. However, the principal of the college chose to cancel the admission on December 11, the decision challenged in high court by the student.

In court, the college as well as the state government had argued that as per a 1995 communication about adopted children, the children adopted by a freedom fighter shall be accorded the benefit only if such freedom fighter did not have any biological child. However, the petitioner’s grandfather had five daughters.

Singh’s father was adopted son of one Boorh Singh, a freedom fighter and adoption deed was executed in 1988.

The BFUHS had taken a contrary stand and had maintained that the admission was as per rules.

The court observed that as per clauses in the prospectus of the MBBS course reservation is without drawing any distinction between adopted and biological children/grandchildren. “The language of the clause is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative deviation, ensuring that the benefit of reservation is equally extended to all the eligible children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, irrespective of their biological status,” the court recorded adding that thus, the distinction sought to be drawn by the government is “fallacious”. It further held that the reservation scheme outlined in the prospectus takes precedence and holds primacy over the reservation framework prescribed in the year 1995 letter. “The prospectus being a binding legal document, cannot be supplanted or undermined by an antedated administrative letter (1995 letter) which explicitly stands inoperative owing to a specific provision, in the form of clause 24, contained in the prospectus,” it held.

“State can’t oppose claims indiscriminately”

The court underlined that in discharging its role as a litigant, the state must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims indiscriminately. “The state must exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be discharged with a sense of responsibility,” it underlined adding that the constitutional framework envisions the state as a welfare state, which is inherently obligated to act in the “best interest of its citizens”.

“In litigation involving the state and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the state’s conduct. Unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the state bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity,” the court remarked adding that frivolous and groundless disputes should not reach court as they consume time and clog the overburdened infrastructure of courts.