The petitioner, a candidate from the Mali – Other Backward Class (OBC) category, was seeking admission to the MBBS course in the Institutional Level Stray Vacancy Round for the academic year 2024-2025. Following the declaration of NEET-UG 2024 results on July 26, 2024, the petitioner was placed on the waiting list for institutional-level vacancies. As required, she submitted the necessary documents, including the Caste Certificate and the Caste Validity Certificate. However, her admission was rejected on the grounds that the Caste Certificate referred to in her Caste Validity Certificate differed from the one she submitted. The petitioner argued that the original Caste Certificate, referenced in the Validity Certificate, had been misplaced and was unavailable, leading her to submit a more recent Caste Certificate dated August 8, 2024.

The petitioner contended that her eligibility to claim OBC status had already been validated by the Caste Validity Certificate issued by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, in October 2022. The petitioner argued that the submission of a new Caste Certificate, though dated differently, did not undermine her caste status or eligibility. She asserted that the insistence on producing the original Caste Certificate was merely a procedural formality and should not have resulted in the denial of her rightful admission.

To substantiate her claims, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Priyal Sarda, referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (AIR 2020 SC 47), which upheld the principle that meritorious candidates should not be denied admission due to technicalities that could be explained.

On the other hand, the respondent college, represented by Mr. Akshay Shinde, contended that the petitioner’s admission was denied due to the submission of an incorrect Caste Certificate, which did not match the one referenced in her Caste Validity Certificate. Furthermore, the college argued that by the time the issue was raised, the cut-off date for admissions had passed, and all seats were filled. Therefore, the college maintained that no relief could be granted.

The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, found that the petitioner had a valid Caste Validity Certificate, issued by the competent authority, confirming her eligibility as an OBC candidate. The Court noted that the Caste Certificate submitted by the petitioner, though dated later, still indicated that she belonged to the Mali caste. The Court acknowledged that the only issue was the mismatch in dates between the original Caste Certificate and the one presented by the petitioner.

Importantly, the Court observed that while the technical issue of the Caste Certificate had caused a delay in the admission process, the petitioner’s eligibility was not in question. The Court found that the refusal of admission based on this procedural discrepancy was unfair, especially given the petitioner’s timely approach to the college and her genuine efforts to comply with the documentation requirements.

In light of these facts, the Court decided to grant relief to the petitioner. Following the principles laid down in the Vansh s/o Prakash Dolas case, the Court invoked the doctrine of restitutive justice—a legal remedy aimed at restoring the petitioner’s position, even though the cut-off date for admissions had passed. The Court directed the college to admit the petitioner by creating a supernumerary seat, thus accommodating her despite the filled vacancies.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner would be required to pay the same tuition and other fees applicable to students admitted through the Institutional Stray Vacancy Round. The Court also instructed the college to forward the necessary proposal for regularizing the petitioner’s admission to the relevant authorities, including the State Common Entrance Test Cell and the National Medical Commission.

This case highlights the Court's commitment to ensuring that technicalities do not deprive meritorious students of their right to education. The ruling underscores the principle of restitutive justice, ensuring that students who have been wrongfully denied admission are given an opportunity to pursue their academic goals. The creation of a supernumerary seat, while rare, reflects the Court’s flexibility and willingness to uphold justice in exceptional cases where procedural errors have caused undue harm to deserving candidates.

In the end, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her admission to the MBBS course, albeit through a supernumerary seat, while also ensuring that the college follow due procedure in regularizing her admission.

This decision serves as an important precedent in medical admission cases, reaffirming the Court’s role in safeguarding students' rights and addressing discrepancies in the admission process.