MOBEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 29,2002

MABEL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MUVEEN KUMAR VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
SARFARAJ NAWAZ C LONI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE PROFESIONAL TECHNICAL AND MADICAL INSTITUTION VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
R Ravindran VS. Government of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
V THENMOZHI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
ABU NASSAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA MATHUR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
BENZIR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2004-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
DR MUVEEN KUMAR VS. UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
MINOR KABHILAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-169] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KANJOLIA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. (DR.) VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-107] [REFERRED TO]
ESHA SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-394] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SINGH YADAV; AMIT CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-1-133] [REFERRED]
DR. MUJTABA WARIS VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2017-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL BHUSHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-315] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SHAHNAWAZ HASSAN VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
SHABANA BALQEES (DR.) VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-5-87] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK KUMAR VS. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
NAVROZ MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK KUMAR VS. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-181] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - (1.)The petitioner seeks review of our order dismissing S.L.P. (C) No. 203 of 2002 in limine on January 21, 2002.
(2.)In the academic year 2000-2001 the petitioner took admission in B.D.S. in M.M. College of Dental Science and Research (Mollana), Ambala but subsequently she withdrew from the course. However, she appeared in the entrance examination of MBBS/BDS courses in Haryana for the academic year 2001-2002 and secured 37th rank. According to her she was entitled to admission in MBBS course in the Rohtak Medical College, Rohtak. In view of Cl. 18 of the Information Brochure of Kurukshetra University, Haryana, for MBBS/BDS entrance examination (for short, 'the Information Brochure') she apprehended that she would not be considered for admission to the MBBS course so she filed writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 11443 of 2001) challenging validity of Cl. 18 of the Information Brochure and seeking a mandamus to the respondents to permit her to compete for admission to MBBS course ignoring the said clause. By order dated November 8, 2001, the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upheld the validity of the said clause and negatived her claim for admission to MBBS course. She unsuccessfully challenged validity of the said order of the High Court in the aforementioned special leave petition which was dismissed by our order, now under review. It is submitted by Mr.K. V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Cl.18 of the Information Brochure cannot be so interpreted as to debar her from seeking admission to the course for all time to come and if the order is not reviewed she would be precluded from seeking admission in the MBBS course forever which is an unintended punishment. Mr. Sanghi would contend that Cl. 18 bars a student who has taken admission in one course, to seek admission in another course.
(3.)It will be useful to refer to Cl. 18 which reads as under :
"18. The candidates already admitted in any Medical/Dental Colleges will not be considered eligible for admission to the course."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.