High Court Quashes MBBS Admission Cancellation: Siblings Vindicated After Authorities’ “Complete Volte Face”
The Delhi High Court, in the matter of W.P.(C) 12757/2023 (Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.), delivered a significant ruling on 18 March 2024, setting aside the cancellation of MBBS admissions for two siblings, Kumar Saurabh and Subhangi Priya, under the Priority III defence quota
The Petitioners, brother and sister of a deceased naval sailor, Kumar Shubham, successfully challenged the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) and the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB).
Initial Eligibility and Documentation
The Petitioners’ admission was initially secured through comprehensive documentation following the sailor’s death in harness on 16 September 2022.
These documents included Dependent Identity Cards (DICES) issued by the Rajya/Zila Sainik Board, a Dependency Certificate from the Naval Pension Office confirming the family was “totally dependent” on the deceased, and Relationship Certificates (equivalent to Proforma ‘C’).
These Relationship Certificates explicitly certified them as “wards of armed forces personnel” under Priority III (Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service) for higher education admission.
Crucially, GGSIPU initially found their claim “legitimate” after they were verified as “Defence Category Priority III”.
Furthermore, the required Undertaking for Defence Category (Appendix 1) was countersigned by the Secretary, RSB, on 25 May 2023, who certified:
“I have checked the original documents and I certify that he/she is entitled for reservation under defence category under priority III (three)”.
Cancellation Based on “Rethink”
The admission, secured after formal verification, was cancelled by GGSIPU via a letter dated 19 September 2023. This cancellation was based solely on an email from Brig. S.K. Narain of the RSB, who “very categorically” stated that Kumar Saurabh was “not eligible for admission… as ward of defence personnel”.
The Respondents justified the cancellation by arguing in their affidavits that the initial documents were issued “inadvertently” and that siblings do not qualify as “Dependents” under pension rules. GGSIPU deferred to the RSB’s opinion, arguing that the term “wards” should be restricted to children/widows to avoid “open floodgates”.
High Court’s Analysis and Favourable Conclusion
The High Court, presided over by Justice C. Hari Shankar, quashed the cancellation based on multiple legal failures:
Unreasoned Order (Mohinder Singh Gill):
The cancellation letter contained “no independent reasoning whatsoever” and relied only on the RSB’s unreasoned email, violating the rule that an order must stand on its own stated grounds.
Impermissible Volte Face:
The RSB’s subsequent denial was a “complete volte face”. Since the Petitioners were “innocent” and had suppressed no facts, their admission could not be cancelled simply because the RSB had a “rethink on the issue”, following precedents like Rajendra Prasad Mathur.
Violation of Natural Justice:
The cancellation was processed without affording the students notice and an opportunity of being heard, constituting a “flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice”.
Faulty Legal Premise:
The RSB’s denial was based on the narrow term “dependents” (relevant to pension), whereas the reservation circulars consistently use the term “wards“. The reason cited by the RSB was thus “faulty”.
The Court further bolstered its position by noting that the Petitioners (siblings) were “vastly better situated” than the cousin who was granted relief as a “ward” in the precedent case of Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College.
The judgment granted the Petitioners readmission and all consequential relief. Furthermore, applying the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (Act of Court shall prejudice no one), the Court excused the Petitioners from any shortage of attendance accrued during the litigation period. Importantly, the Court made no final ruling on the scope of the term “wards,” reserving that debate for a future occasion
——————————————————————————–
Notes on W.P.(C) 12757/2023: Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
|
Category
|
Detail
|
Citations
|
| Case Identification |
W.P.(C) 12757/2023, decided 18 March 2024 by Justice C. Hari Shankar. |
|
| Petitioners |
Kumar Saurabh (Petitioner 1) and Subhangi Priya (Petitioner 2), siblings of deceased naval sailor Kumar Shubham. |
|
| Admission Category |
Defence Category, Priority III (Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service). |
|
| Initial Documentation |
Dependent Identity Cards (DICES) issued by Rajya/Zila Sainik Board, Dependency Certificate (family “totally dependent”), and Relationship Certificates (Proforma ‘C’) issued by Naval Pension Office. |
|
| Key Certification |
RSB Secretary countersigned Appendix 1, certifying that they had checked the original documents and that the petitioners were “entitled for reservation under defence category under priority III (three)” on 25 May 2023. |
|
| Cancellation Trigger |
Email from Brig. S.K. Narain of RSB on 13 September 2023 stating Kumar Saurabh was “not eligible for admission” as a ward of defence personnel. |
|
| Cancellation Date |
19 September 2023, via letter issued by GGSIPU. |
|
| RSB Justification (Affidavit) |
Prior documents were issued “inadvertently”. Siblings are excluded by the restrictive definition of “Dependants” used for pension benefite |
|
| GGSIPU Justification |
GGSIPU had “no option but to cancel” once the RSB reversed its opinion. The term “wards” must be restricted to children/widows to avoid “open floodgates. |
|
| Ground 1 for Quashing |
The cancellation letter was “completely unreasoned”, relying solely on an unreasoned email, violating the Mohinder Singh Gill principle |
|
| Ground 2 for Quashing |
The RSB’s reversal was an impermissible “complete volte face”. Admission, once granted after satisfying eligibility, cannot be revisited, especially since Petitioners committed “no fault whatsoever”. |
|
| Ground 3 for Quashing |
Flagrant violation of natural justice; cancellation was issued without notice or an opportunity of being heard. |
|
| Ground 4 for Quashing |
The RSB based its denial on the restrictive term “dependents” (pension) instead of “wards” (reservation policy), making its reasoning “faulty”. |
|
| Scope of ‘Wards’ |
The Court “not expressed any final opinion on the scope and ambit of the expression ‘wards'”. The debate was “relegated to a more opportune occasion”. |
|
| Precedent Cited |
Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College, where a cousin was granted relief. The siblings were deemed “vastly better situated” than the cousin. |
|
| Final Relief |
The impugned letter (19 Sep 2023) was quashed and set aside. Petitioners are entitled to be readmitted and receive all consequential relief. |
|
| Attendance Relief |
Petitioners shall not be restrained from appearing in their examination on the ground of shortage of attendance, applying the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (Act of Court shall prejudice no one). |
|
Background: Admission Through Defence Quota
The petitioners — brother and sister of late naval sailor Kumar Shubham, who died in harness on 16 September 2022 — had been granted admission to MBBS courses through the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) under the Defence Category, Priority III, which covers “widows/wards of Defence personnel who died in service with death attributable to military service.”
Their eligibility was established through comprehensive documentation, including:
-
Dependent Identity Cards (DICES) issued by the Rajya/Zila Sainik Board (RSB);
-
A Dependency Certificate from the Naval Pension Office, affirming the family was “totally dependent” on the deceased; and
-
Relationship Certificates (Proforma ‘C’) certifying them as “wards of armed forces personnel.”
Based on these documents, GGSIPU verified and approved their admission. The RSB itself had countersigned the Defence Category Undertaking (Appendix 1) on 25 May 2023, explicitly confirming their entitlement under Priority III.
The Sudden Cancellation
Despite this formal verification, GGSIPU abruptly cancelled their admissions via a letter dated 19 September 2023. The cancellation relied solely on an email from Brigadier S.K. Narain of the Rajya Sainik Board, stating that Kumar Saurabh was “not eligible for admission… as ward of defence personnel.”
The RSB later contended that the initial certificates had been issued “inadvertently”, arguing that siblings are not “dependents” under pension rules.
GGSIPU, deferring to this revised stance, maintained it had “no option but to cancel” the admission and cautioned that widening the definition of “wards” might “open floodgates” of claims.
Court’s Findings: Administrative Fairness Restored
Justice C. Hari Shankar’s judgment emphatically quashed the cancellation, identifying multiple legal infirmities:
Unreasoned Order (Mohinder Singh Gill Principle)
The Court noted that the cancellation letter contained “no independent reasoning whatsoever”, resting entirely on the RSB’s unreasoned email. This violated the established rule that an administrative order must stand or fall on its stated reasons.
Impermissible “Volte Face”
The RSB’s reversal, the Court observed, amounted to a “complete volte face.” Once eligibility had been verified and admissions granted, the authority could not revisit its decision merely because it had a “rethink on the issue.”
Citing Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, the Court stressed that the petitioners, having committed no fault, could not suffer for administrative inconsistency.
Violation of Natural Justice
The cancellation was executed without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, constituting a “flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.”
Faulty Legal Premise
The RSB’s reasoning relied on the definition of “dependents” applicable to pensionary benefits, whereas the reservation policy used the broader term “wards.” The Court held this conflation to be legally “faulty.”
Judicial Reasoning and Relief Granted
Justice Shankar also drew parallels with Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College, where a cousin had been granted relief as a “ward.” The Court observed that the present petitioners, being real siblings of the deceased serviceman, were “vastly better situated.”
Accordingly, the High Court:
-
Set aside the impugned cancellation letter of 19 September 2023;
-
Directed readmission of both petitioners with all consequential benefits; and
-
Applied the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (“an act of the Court shall prejudice no one”) to excuse any shortage of attendance during the litigation period.
However, the Court expressly refrained from making a conclusive determination on the broader interpretation of “wards,” noting that the issue might require adjudication in a future case.
Significance of the Ruling
This decision underscores several foundational principles of administrative law:
-
Accountability of Authorities: Administrative bodies cannot reverse verified decisions arbitrarily or without reason.
-
Procedural Fairness: Students and applicants must be given notice and a chance to be heard before adverse decisions.
-
Substantive Justice Over Technicalities: The Court reaffirmed that technical missteps by authorities should not prejudice innocent beneficiaries.
The case also highlights the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against bureaucratic inconsistency, particularly in matters affecting students’ careers and the integrity of quota-based admissions.
Citation:
W.P.(C) 12757/2023 – Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment delivered on 18 March 2024 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, High Court of Delhi.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
