The Supreme Court in the case Vikrant Balouria & Ors. v Ashish Kumar & Ors observed while assailing Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order of setting aside a notice issued by a Medical College in the State of HP as which made the candidates ineligible to participate in further rounds of counselling including Mop Up round in the candidates who have been allotted PG seats in the previous round. The vacation bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the Justice BV Nagarathna observed while assailing the High Court order dated May 23, 2022 as the Court refused to grant an interim relief in the plea. The Bench further remarked that Passing of any interim order will lead to more complications as the exam is tomorrow and we have to go ahead as these are the fate of the system, ask them to appear. Advocate Mushtaq Salim and the Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appeared for the petitioner. assailing the impugned notification dated March 19, 2022 issued by the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, on the ground that it was in violation of clause 2.3 of the Prospectus, The respondent had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Candidates intended to participate in Mop Up/ extended Mop Up round to surrender their already occupied PG seat and the candidates who were admitted under 50% State Quota in Govt Medical Colleges of the State mandated under Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus. under State Quota, the respondent sough admission in the PG Course and later the respondent surrendered the seat had also sought relief to participate in the Mop Up Round/extended Mop Up round. The Respondent further submitted while opposing the petitioner that the State’s counsel had relied on advisory dated March 16 issued by the MCC which prevented students who have taken seats in State Quota after Round 2 from participating in the Mop-Up. The bench further stated in its order that the terms of the prospectus legally bound the respondent and the respondent could not take shelter of advisory issued vis-à-vis All India Quota. in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus, the seats falling within the State Quota are concerned, are to be filled up and in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus, the respondents cannot take shelter of the said advisory to deny opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the Mop Up round. The instructions issued vis-à-vis All India Quota cannot be ipso facto applied to the State Quota and as far as the filling of seats are concerned, with regards to the state quota, needs to be governed by Clause 2.3 of the Prospectus.
