<p>A Division Bench of the High Court annulled on Thursday, the judgement passed by Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri ordering the Comed-K to redo the first round of postgraduate counselling for dental courses. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna allowed writ appeals filed by the Comed-K, and ruled that they did not wish to disturb the admissions already made. <br /><br />“In our opinion, the single judge has rewritten the conditions to be complied by the students, and this is impermissible even in the writ jurisdiction, especially where most students have already meticulously complied with all the stipulations,” Justice Sen ruled.<br /><br />A few top-ranked students had challenged the Comed-K decision to bar them from attending the counselling on May 19 for bringing “faulty” demand drafts (DDs). Justice Hinchigeri allowed the writ petitions on May 25 and ordered the Comed-K to conduct the counselling afresh. The Comed-K then moved the Division Bench against the judgement passed by Justice Hinchigeri. <br /><br />Justice Sen observed that it was expected of the students —highly educated and literate people — to follow the rules. “Equity does not lie in favour of the aggrieved students who, however, can seek damages from the Comed-K if they think it was at fault,” he observed. <br /><br />The Bench cited the Supreme Court directive that the admission process for medical and dental courses be completed by May 31 each year. Neither were all students impleaded in the case nor was any malafide alleged against the Comed-K. At the most, a Comed-K official committed a mistake in one instance, the court said. <br /><br />“The students may be disappointed that only a few seats would be available, but to totally think that their rights have been infringed is a misnomer. Courts cannot always ensure redressal of every nuance of grievance,” the order read, adding that interference would be warranted only where a decision is perverse or unreasonable. The case had neither. “If any hardship is caused to a few students, it is of their own making.<br /><br />The entire counselling cannot be held captive which would unsettle the settled matters.”</p>
<p>A Division Bench of the High Court annulled on Thursday, the judgement passed by Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri ordering the Comed-K to redo the first round of postgraduate counselling for dental courses. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna allowed writ appeals filed by the Comed-K, and ruled that they did not wish to disturb the admissions already made. <br /><br />“In our opinion, the single judge has rewritten the conditions to be complied by the students, and this is impermissible even in the writ jurisdiction, especially where most students have already meticulously complied with all the stipulations,” Justice Sen ruled.<br /><br />A few top-ranked students had challenged the Comed-K decision to bar them from attending the counselling on May 19 for bringing “faulty” demand drafts (DDs). Justice Hinchigeri allowed the writ petitions on May 25 and ordered the Comed-K to conduct the counselling afresh. The Comed-K then moved the Division Bench against the judgement passed by Justice Hinchigeri. <br /><br />Justice Sen observed that it was expected of the students —highly educated and literate people — to follow the rules. “Equity does not lie in favour of the aggrieved students who, however, can seek damages from the Comed-K if they think it was at fault,” he observed. <br /><br />The Bench cited the Supreme Court directive that the admission process for medical and dental courses be completed by May 31 each year. Neither were all students impleaded in the case nor was any malafide alleged against the Comed-K. At the most, a Comed-K official committed a mistake in one instance, the court said. <br /><br />“The students may be disappointed that only a few seats would be available, but to totally think that their rights have been infringed is a misnomer. Courts cannot always ensure redressal of every nuance of grievance,” the order read, adding that interference would be warranted only where a decision is perverse or unreasonable. The case had neither. “If any hardship is caused to a few students, it is of their own making.<br /><br />The entire counselling cannot be held captive which would unsettle the settled matters.”</p>
