High Court Quashes MBBS Admission Cancellation: Siblings Vindicated After Authorities’ “Complete Volte Face”
In a landmark decision that underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in educational admissions, the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation of MBBS seats for two siblings under the defence quota.
The case, W.P.(C) 12757/2023 titled Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 18 March 2024 by Justice C. Hari Shankar, highlights how administrative “rethinking” cannot override verified eligibility without due process.
This ruling not only reinstates the petitioners but also serves as a cautionary tale for authorities handling reservation policies.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Kumar Saurabh and Subhangi Priya, are the brother and sister of Kumar Shubham, a naval sailor who tragically died in harness on 16 September 2022.
Seeking admission to MBBS programs under the Priority III defence quota—reserved for widows and wards of defence personnel who died in service attributable to military duties—they approached Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) with comprehensive documentation.
Their initial application was supported by:
- 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.
- Relationship Certificates (equivalent to Proforma ‘C’), which explicitly certified them as “wards of armed forces personnel” under Priority III.
GGSIPU verified these documents and deemed their claim “legitimate,” granting them admission under the Defence Category Priority III.
Adding further weight, on 25 May 2023, the Secretary of the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB) countersigned the required Undertaking for Defence Category (Appendix 1), certifying: “I have checked the original documents and I certify that he/she is entitled for reservation under defence category under priority III (three).”
This formal verification process appeared to solidify their eligibility, allowing the siblings to commence their medical studies.
The Sudden Cancellation: A “Rethink” Triggers Reversal
Despite the initial approvals, the petitioners’ admissions were abruptly cancelled on 19 September 2023 via a letter from GGSIPU. The sole basis for this action was an email dated 13 September 2023 from Brig. S.K. Narain of the RSB, who stated that Kumar Saurabh was “not eligible for admission… as ward of defence personnel.”
In their affidavits before the court, the respondents—GGSIPU and RSB—defended the cancellation by claiming the original documents had been issued “inadvertently.”
They argued that siblings do not qualify as “dependents” under pension rules, which they interpreted restrictively to include only children or widows. GGSIPU further contended that it had “no option but to cancel” once the RSB reversed its stance, warning that a broader interpretation of “wards” could “open floodgates” to unqualified claims.
This reversal, described by the court as a “complete volte face,” came without any new evidence or allegations of fraud on the petitioners’ part. It effectively uprooted the siblings’ academic pursuits mid-course, prompting them to challenge the decision through a writ petition.
High Court’s Scrutiny: Unpacking the Legal Flaws
Justice C. Hari Shankar’s judgment meticulously dissected the respondents’ actions, quashing the cancellation on four primary grounds:
Unreasoned Order:
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the court emphasized that an administrative order must contain independent reasoning to withstand judicial review. The GGSIPU cancellation letter was “completely unreasoned,” relying entirely on the RSB’s email, which itself lacked any explanation. This rendered the decision arbitrary and unsustainable.
Impermissible Volte Face:
The court held that once eligibility is verified and admission granted, authorities cannot retract it merely due to a “rethink.” Drawing from precedents like Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, it noted that the petitioners were “innocent” and had not suppressed any facts. The RSB’s about-face, without fault attributable to the students, was deemed impermissible.
Violation of Natural Justice:
The cancellation was issued without prior notice or an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. This “flagrant violation” of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) principles invalidated the process, as the siblings were denied a chance to defend their documented eligibility.
Faulty Legal Premise:
The RSB’s denial hinged on the term “dependents” from pension regulations, which is narrower than “wards” used in reservation circulars. The court found this reasoning “faulty,” as it conflated distinct policy contexts.
Bolstering its analysis, the court referenced Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College, where even a cousin was granted relief as a “ward.” The siblings, being direct blood relatives, were “vastly better situated,” further justifying their claim.
Notably, the judgment refrained from definitively interpreting the scope of “wards,” leaving that for a future case. Instead, it focused on procedural lapses, ensuring the ruling’s applicability beyond this specific quota.
Relief Granted and Broader Implications
The court quashed the 19 September 2023 cancellation letter, directing GGSIPU to readmit the petitioners with all consequential benefits. Applying the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), it excused any attendance shortages incurred during the litigation, allowing the siblings to appear for examinations without hindrance.
This decision reinforces key legal tenets in reservation and admission disputes:
- Administrative bodies must provide reasoned decisions.
- Reversals of verified eligibility require strong justification and due process.
- Distinctions in policy terminology (e.g., “dependents” vs. “wards”) must be respected.
For students and families navigating defence quotas, it highlights the value of thorough documentation and the right to challenge arbitrary cancellations. It also serves as a reminder to authorities that “rethinking” cannot undermine vested rights without accountability.
This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance on legal matters, consult Legal Light Consulting – LLC, your trusted lawyers for all legal needs
