THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C) No.4059/2017 After Uddin Ahmed, S/O Aklas Uddin Ahmed, Resident of Vill-Faridpur, PO-Nayagram, Dist.-Karimganj, Assam, Pin-788709. -versus- 1. The State of Assam, Through the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Assam Sachivalaya, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 3. The Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 4. The Controller of Examination, Office of the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. Petitioner. Respondents. For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : Mr. I.H. Saikia, Ms. S. Kanungoe, Mr. L.M. Rahman, Mr. K. Kalita, Mr. M.R. Choudhury. Mr. D. Saikia, Addl. AG, Assam Mr. B. Gogoi, SC, Health..Advocates..Advocates. BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Date of Hearing : 22.08.2017 & 24.08.2017 Date of Judgment : 25 th August, 2017 WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 1 of 14

JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. 2. The petitioner applied for admission for medical studies against the 85% State quota seats, but he is considered ineligible because of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulation of Admission into 1 st year MBBS/BDS Course) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Admission Rules, 2017 ). The Rule stipulates that a student should have studied in a Assam School in all classes from Class VII Class XII. The applicant has done his schooling outside the State and he seeks prospective operation of the Rule 3(1)(c), from the next year s admission. 3. In this case, the admission seeker is After Uddin Ahmed (All India Rank- 56209, State Rank-251). 4. Some candidates who have pursued their school education in outside Assam schools for which, they are considered ineligible for the 85% State quota seats in the Government Medical Colleges of Assam, by application of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017 challenged the validity of Rule 3(1)(c) but the Division Bench on 2.8.2017, had declared the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017, to be valid. However, the matters were remanded to the Single Judge to determine whether, the new Rule gazetted on 11.7.2017, will govern this year s admission, for which the admission process started with the Notice issued on 30.1.2017 by the CBSE, for conducting the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) for 2017-2018, for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. 5. The admission for medical seats was regulated earlier by the Medical Colleges of Assam, Regional Dental College, Guwahati and the Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Regulation ). This was repealed by the Assam (Regulation of Admission into 1 st Year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Regulation ). Under Rule 3(1) of the later Regulation, it was stipulated that the candidates must study in all classes from Class WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 2 of 14

VII to XII in the State of Assam to avail the Assam Quota Seats. Thereafter, by the educational notice dated 6.5.2015, the provision was relaxed and made applicable for candidates applying for the Combined Entrance Examination or CEE, 2015. 6. Those affected by the stipulation for studying in Assam School for availing the State Quota Seats, challenged the vires of the amended 2015 Regulation and the substitution of Rule 3(1)(c), by the amendment notification dated 30.1.2016. The WP(C) No.4904/2016 (Hiralal Choudhury Vs. State of Assam) and other cases were analogously decided by the High Court on 28.9.2016 and the Division Bench declared the classification to be irrational, legally discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It was accordingly held that Rule 3(1)(c) as amended in 2016 cannot be invoked, to deny admission, to the concerned aspirants. 7. In supersession of the 2015 Regulation, the Admission Rules, 2017 was gazetted on 11.7.2017 and as earlier noted, the stipulation of studies in Assam Schools under Rule 3(1)(c), is again obstructing the admission of the aspirants to the State quota seats, in the session 2017. 8. RELEVANT DATES FOR 2017 ADMISSION. 30.01.2017- CBSE issued Notification for NEET (UG) Examination for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses, for the session 2017 2018. 08.02.2017- The Director of Medical Education (DME), Assam issued the Educational Notice to inform that in order to secure admission to either the State of Assam Quota (85%) or the All India Quota Seats (15%) for the session 2017, the aspirants are to apply through NEET (UG) 2017 conducted by the CBSE. The candidates were also advised to visit the CBSE Website for Online application and also to gather information on other details regarding the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. 07.05.2017- NEET (UG) examination held. 23.06.2017- NEET (UR) result/ranking declared. 01.07.2017- Assam State Merit List of NEET (UG) 2017 released. WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 3 of 14

03.07.2017- Educational Notice issued by the DME, Assam for admission inviting applications from those in the Assam State Merit List, indicating the Reserve Category Seats for 12 groups and specifying the schedule for admission with first round counselling, commencing on 16.7.2017. 11.07.2017- Admission Notice issued by the DME, Assam specifying the dates on which the candidates as per their State Rank are to appear for the respective Counselling session. 11.07.2017- Gazette Notification bringing into force the Admission Rules 2017. PETITIONER S ARGUMENT 9.1 Referring to the above dates, the petitioner contends that the admission process for the session 2017 commenced with the CBSE s notification dated 30.1.2017 and the DME s notification of 8.2.2017. With the declaration of the NEET result on 23.6.2017 and the release of the State Merit List on 1.7.2017 (based on NEET examination performance) and also the Educational Notice dated 3.7.2017 notifying the dates of counselling for the State Quota Seats, the rights to secure admission for this year s medical seats got crystalized. Therefore it is argued that the change of the eligibility criteria with the Admission Rules, 2017 enforced on 11.7.2017, cannot disturb the already crystalized rights of the petitioner. 9.2 Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel submits that the Admission Rules, 2017 notified midway through the process, cannot be applied for to the 2017 session as the disability attached for the aspirants, under Rule 3(1)(c) of the recently notified Rules, 2017, should not effect those, who started their admission quest, well before the new Rules were notified. 9.3 The norms of admission to the State Medical Colleges have been changed from time to time and the petitioner contends that when the admission process commenced for the session 2017, the Medical Colleges of Assam, Regional Dental College, Guwahati and the Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Regulation ) was made the basis of admission in 2015 where, the eligibility criteria was specified under Rule 3(2)(c), as under - WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 4 of 14

.. (c) unless he/she has completed minimum of 4 years schooling either at (i) HSLC or equivalent stage or (ii) HSLC and HSSLC or equivalent stages combined from the recognized schools conducting regular classes situated within the State of Assam. Provided if the candidate has not done 4 years of schooling in the State then their Father or Mother must have completed his/her schooling in the State for minimum 4 years in HSLC level and they must furnish the certificate listed in the Annexure-II whichever is applicable, in order for their son/daughter to be eligible to appear in the Common Entrance Examination for any of the Courses. Provided further that nothing contained in the clause shall be applicable to the sons and daughters of the officers of All India Services allotted to Assam. 9.4 The 2007 Regulation was superseded by the 2015 Regulation which in turn was amended on 30.1.2016 through substitution of Rules 3(1)(c). Since under the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in the WP(C) No.4904/2016 (Hiralal Choudhury vs. State of Assam and others), the Division Bench struck down Rule 3(1)(c) substituted by 2016 amendment in the 2015 Regulation, the eligibility criteria specified in the 2007 Regulation, was followed by the respondents. Hence it is argued that for this year s admission, the norms in the Educational Notice of 6.5.2015 should govern, the admission for the 2017 session and the Admission Rules, 2017 gazetted on 11.7.2017, cannot be applied to deny admission for the aspirants, in the current session. RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT 10.1 On the other hand, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the admission process for the State Quota Seats commenced only on 11.7.2017, when the admission notice was issued by the DME, Assam and since the Admission Rules 2017 was also gazetted on the same date i.e. 11.7.2017, the respondents argue that the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017, should apply for the 2017 session also. 10.2 The learned Addl. Advocate General refers to sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 to project that the Admission Rules, 2017 was made applicable from the academic session 2017 itself and accordingly it is argued that it is not a case of retrospective application of the norms. Moreover since the norms have been simultaneously WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 5 of 14

notified with the admission notice, the admission for the State Quota Seats must be made, on the basis of the norms in the Admission Rules, 2017. 10.3 The respondents contend that the eligibility of the aspirants must be judged on the date of the admission notice i.e. 11.7.2017 and participation in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination and securing their respective ranks as per the result declared on 23.6.2017, will not entitle the aspirants to claim admission on the basis of the norms prevalent prior to 11.7.2017. 10.4 The respondents claim that success in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination merely qualifies an aspirant for admission for MBBS/BDS seats but the merit in the entrance test will not confer any vested right for admission, for the State Quota Seats and the learned Addl. A.G. compares the NEET examination with the TET examination, the success in which, does not guarantee a job but it is only a qualifying barrier. 10.5 According to the respondents the Admission Rules, 2017 have been notified in exercise of the executive powers of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution and projecting the Admission Rules to be a case of subordinate legislation, the learned Addl. Advocate General argues that such subordinate legislation can also be enacted, with retrospective effect. 10.6 The learned Addl. A.G. submits that when the High Court struck down the Rule 3(1)(c) as substituted on 30.1.2016 in the 2015 Regulation, under the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in the WP(C) No.4904/2016 (Hiralal Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and others), the admission to the concerned litigants was granted without disqualifying them for having done their schooling (Class-VI to Class-X) in outside Assam Schools, only because of the direction issued by the Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment dated 28.9.2016. But for this mandamus of the Court, the Rule 3(1)(c) as originally enacted of the 2015 Regulation, should have governed the admission of those litigants. As the Division Bench had quashed only the substituted Rule 3(1)(c) incorporated by the amendment notification dated 30.1.2016 but the original Rule 3(1)(c) before substitution in the 2015 Regulation, remained intact, Mr. Saikia argues that if the Admission Rules, 2017 does not apply for the current session, the aspirants will have to satisfy the requirement of Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2015 Regulation. WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 6 of 14

DISCUSSION AND DECISION 11. The admission notice issued on 30.1.2017 by the CBSE indicated that as per amendment made in 2016 to the Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the MCI Act ), admission to all seats of MBBS/BDS Courses will be done through NEET (UG) 2017 examination and all categories of seats, including State Government Quota Seats, will be filled up through this process. The eligibility criteria for appearing in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination was specified and it was stated that admission including those for the Reserve Categories will be considered, on the basis of the marks obtained in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. The CBSE was required to provide the entrance examination results to the admitting authorities who are to invite application for counselling, as per the merit list, drawn up on the basis of ranking in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. 12. The Section 10D inserted on 14.8.2016 to the MCI Act, introduced the uniform mode of medical admission and the same being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference : 10D. There shall be conducted a uniform entrance examination to all medical educational institutions at the undergraduate level and post-graduate level through such designated authority in Hindi, English and such other languages and in such manner as may be prescribed and the designated authority shall ensure the conduct of uniform entrance examination in the aforesaid manner Provided that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court, the provisions of this section shall not apply, in relation to the uniform entrance examination at the undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-2017 conducted in accordance with any regulations made under this Act, in respect of the State Government Seats (Whether in Government Medical College or in a private Medical College) when such State has not opted for such examination. 13. The candidates appeared in the Entrance Examination on 7.5.2017 and their result was declared on 23.6.2017, whereafter the State Merit List was released on 1.7.2017. On the basis of their performance in the Entrance Test and their respective ranking, the candidates were to be admitted in the 2017 session and through the Educational Notice dated 3.7.2017, the schedule for counselling for all categories of aspirants, as per the State Merit List was notified by the DME, Assam on 3.7.2017. The subsequent Admission Notice of 11.7.2017 in continuation, indicated the different dates of counselling as per the ranking in the State Merit List, for various categories of aspirants. WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 7 of 14

14. It is important to be aware that the right to secure admission in the 2017 session, was based entirely on the performance in the Entrance Test and such right got crystalized through declaration of NEET (UG) 2017 examination result on 1.7.2017, followed by the DME s Educational Notice of 3.7.2017. Now the question is whether the Admission Rules, 2017 gazetted on 11.7.2017 should be applied for the aspirants, whose right to secure admission perhaps got crystallized, on the basis of their performance in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. 15. The Admission Rules, 2017 stipulates that it shall come into force when it is published in the official gazette and as can be seen, the 2017 Rules was published in the Gazette on 11.7.2017. The sub-clause (2) of clause 1 specified that the new norms shall be applicable from the academic session 2017 to regulate the admission to the MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical/Dental Colleges of Assam. As earlier noted, the admission process for the 2017 session, commenced on 30.1.2017 with the CBSE s notice for the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. The DME, Assam under the Education Notice of 8.2.2017, had directed the aspirants from the State, to apply for the Assam Quota Seats, through the NEET (UG) 2017 examination conducted by the CBSE. Therefore, unless the Admission Rules, 2017 commencing from 11.7.2017 is retrospectively applied to the process which started 6 months earlier, the norms under the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017 cannot be made applicable for the aspirants, whose right to admission might have got crystallized, through declaration of results in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination on 23.6.2017 based upon which, the State Merit List was released on 1.7.2017. 16. The Legislature is empowered to enact laws with retrospective operation. But here we are not dealing with any legislation but norms formulated by the Executive, where the power for retrospective change, would be severely circumscribed. Unless the authority of the Executive to make retrospective change of norms, is demonstrated without any ambiguity, the Court will not permit extinguishment of vested right through executive fiat. 17. To understand the principles of retrospective operation, we can be guided by the ratio in The Income Tax Officer, Alleppy, vs. M.C. Ponnoose and Others reported in (1969)2 SCC 351, where the court observed as follows. WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 8 of 14

Now it is open to a sovereign legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation. Even when the Parliament enacts retrospective laws such laws are - in the words of Willes, J. in Phillips v. Eyre (40 Law J. Rep (N.S.) Q.B. 28 at p.37) - 'no doubt prima facie of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.' The courts will not, therefore, ascribe retrospectivity to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature. The Parliament can delegate its legislative power within the recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is made by the person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or bye- law which can operate with retrospective effect.. 18. The above ratio makes it amply clear that the authority to make rules or regulation with retrospective impact is circumscribed. Therefore unless the authority is vested with specific power, they cannot formulate midstream changes to impact vested rights. 19. Commenting on presumption of prospective operation of legislation, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Private Limited reported in (2015)1 SCC 1, observed that the idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities and law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. It is therefore stated that the basis of the principle against retrospectivity, is the principle of fairness which must be the basis of every legal rule. The legislation which modifies accrued right or imposes a new disability, have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is to give the enactment, a retrospective effect. 20. In the present case, the Court is not examining any legislative enactment but the Admission Rules, 2017 notified by the government on 11.7.2017 which made midstream change, impacting the eligibility for admission in a process which commenced 6 months earlier on the basis of the CBSE s notice for the NEET (UG) WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 9 of 14

2017 examination and the notice dated 8.2.2017 of the DME, Assam, for the aspirants for the State Quota Seats to appear in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. When the aspirants applied for admission by appearing in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination, they would expect their admission to be considered on the basis of the norms applicable on the date, when the process commenced or at least on the date when the entrance test result were declared. But what is seen here is that only on the eve of starting the counselling process, the new norms were notified. The Court will therefore be slow to allow retrospective application of the changed norms. 21. The NEET (UG) 2017 examination, in my understanding cannot be equated to an eligibility test to apply for admission since it is the performance in the entrance test which makes one entitled for admission for the current session. Only those who satisfy the education and age criterion specified in the CBSE s notice for the NEET examination, can appear in the entrance test and since the performance in the entrance test confers right of admission, the NEET examination cannot be equated to an eligibility test like the TET. 22. That apart, the result of the NEET (UG) 2017 examination does not have indefinite application like the TET result, since performance in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination will enable admission in the current session only, whereas qualification in the TET examination, will enable the successful candidate to apply for teacher s job whenever vacancies accrue. Moreover, the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that NEET (UG) 2017 examination was never intended to be an eligibility test since the performance in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination is made the basis for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. Therefore arguments made to the contrary by the learned Addl. A.G. is not accepted. 23. The Admission Rules, 2017 was gazetted on 11.7.2017 and it cannot be accepted as piece of delegated legislation, as has been argued by the State. Only on the basis of power delegated by a primary legislation, the exercise of power by the delegatee can be construed as an exercise of delegated legislative power. But the Assam Government has not enacted any law to regulate admission in the MBBS/DMS Courses in the Government Colleges and therefore, the Admission Rules, 2017 cannot be construed to be a legislative enactment. WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 10 of 14

24. The so called Admission Rules that the Court is concerned with in the present case, are not framed either under any statutory enactment or under any provision of the Constitution. They can at best be considered as administrative instruction but certainly not to be construed as Rules under Article 162 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Fernandez Vs. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1967 SC 1753, while commenting on the executive power of the State under Article 162 stated that-..this Article in our opinion merely indicates the scope of the executive power of the State; it does not 'confer any power on the State Government to issue rules thereunder. As a matter of fact wherever the Constitution, envisages issue of rules it has so provided in specific terms. We may, for example, refer to Article 309, the proviso to which lays down in specific terms that the President or the Governor of a State may make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions,of service of persons appointed to services and posts under the Union or the State. We are therefore of opinion that Article 162 does not confer any power on the State Government to frame rules and it only indicates the scope of the executive power of the State. Of course, under such executive power, the State can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which-are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefore. It is not in dispute that there is no statute which confers any authority on the State Government to issue rules in matters with which the Code is concerned; nor has any provision of the Constitution been pointed' out to us under which these instructions can be issued as statutory rules except Article 162. But as we have already indicated, Article 162 does not confer any authority on the State Government to issue statutory rules. It only provides for the extent and scope of the executive power of the State Government, and that coincides with the legislative power of the State legislature. Thus under Article 162, the State Government can take executive action in all matters in which the legislature of the State can pass laws. But Article 162 itself does not confer any rule making power on the State Government in that behalf. We are therefore of opinion that instructions contained in the Code are mere administrative instructions and are not statutory rules 25. In the context of Rule 1(2) of the Admission Rules, 2017 urged by the learned Addl. A.G., the Executive made Rules one must understand, stand on a much weaker footing. The power of the legislature to prescribe norms retrospectively, is not available with the executive. Therefore the executive made Rules cannot be allowed to retrospectively destroy any vested right, as was held in WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 11 of 14

Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of Biha reported in 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 451. The ratio of this verdict of the Supreme Court applies here. 26. The notice issued by the DME, Assam on 8.2.2017 clearly reflected that all aspirants for the Assam Quote MBBS/BDS Seats should apply through the NEET (UG) 2017 examination, to be conducted by the CBSE and therefore, there is no ambiguity on commencing the process of admission for the session 2017, well before the Admission Rules, 2017 was gazetted on 11.7.2017. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that obstruction to admission cannot be caused under Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017 for those, who might have acquired their right of admission, on the basis of their performance in the entrance examination and the publication of the State Merit List on 1.7.2017. 27. Consequently, if the admission for the 2017 session is not to be governed by the Admission Rules, 2017, the question is which norm will govern the admission of the aspirants, who appeared in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. For answering this issue, one has to take into account that this Court under the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in the WP(C) No.4904/2016 (Hiralal Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and others), struck down the substituted Rule under the amendment notification of 30.1.2016 in the 2015 Regulation. It is relevant to note that Rule 3(1)(c) as originally incorporated in the 2015 Regulation, is not touched by any judgment of the High Court. Therefore when the substituted Rule 3(1)(c) under the amended notification of 30.1.2016 was struck down, the admission for the litigants should have been considered under the originally enacted Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2015 Regulation. But this was not done only because of the mandamus issued by the Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in Hiralal Choudhury (supra). Therefore, it rationally follows that the 2015 Regulation should govern the admission, in the current year. It is accordingly held that the 2015 Regulation must be the basis for admission, in the current year for those, who applied for admission, by appearing in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. 28. The Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2015 Regulation being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:-. 3. Eligibility for appearing in the Common Entrance Examination for admission.- WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 12 of 14

The following conditions must be fulfilled.- (1)(a) (b) (c). The candidate including son/daughters of officers of All India Services must study in all classes from Class-VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination from the Institutes situated in Assam. (Certificate at Annexure-II in Application Form B at Schedule-I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling): Provided that if a candidate studies outside Assam from Class-VII onwards because his/her father/mother is posted outside Assam as a State Government employee on deputation or transfer or regular posting then the period for which father/mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable for such candidate. (Certificate of employment of father/mother outside the state indicating the period of service must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling). 29. In the above context, the admission granted under the 2007 Regulation under DME s notice of 6.5.2015, has no connection with the Court s later judgment dated 28.9.2016 in Hiralal Choudhury (supra). Therefore, the submission made by the petitioner that in the event the Admission Rules, 2017 is not to be applied, the 2007 Regulation will govern the admission, in the current session, is not acceptable. This is because the 2007 Regulation was superseded by the 2015 Regulation and it will be illogical to revert back to the already superseded norms, when the Regulation 2015 as originally enacted, has remained valid. 30. The Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE reported in (2005)9 SCC 779 had declared that while applying for any course of study, the person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date for application. The period for application for this year s admission was scheduled during 30.1.2017 to 1.3.2017 and hence the eligibility for the petitioner must be with reference to the last date of application i.e. 1.3.2017. Therefore, the admission must be granted on the basis of the norms, prevalent on the date when the aspirants could last apply and logically therefore, the new Rules cannot apply for admission in the current session. 31. Following the above conclusion, the respondents are directed to ensure admission to the State Quota Seats for the petitioner to the MBBS/BDS courses in the 2017 session, in accordance with his respective ranking in the entrance test. As the mop-up round by the admission authorities is scheduled between 26 th 28 th WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 13 of 14

August 2017 as per the Educational Notice dated 3.7.2017 of the DME, the respondents should re-determine the eligibility with reference to the 2015 Regulation and then allow admission of the eligible aspirants without enforcing the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017, against them. However it is made clear that the norms under the 2015 Regulation will have to be satisfied by the aspirant. It is ordered accordingly. 32. With the above order, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated. No cost. Roy JUDGE WP(C) 4059/2017 Page 14 of 14