HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

(i) OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

Reserved on: 29.07.2026.

Pronounced on: 27.08.2026

Uploaded on : 27.08.2026.

01. Simron Randhawa

D/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh

R/o H.No. 98, Ward No. 1

Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

02. Meenakshi Panotra

D/o Sh. Kuldeep Raj

R/o Rattnu Chak, Jammu.

03. Sheenam Gupta

D/o Sh. Suresh Gupta

R/o Shaurya Agro Products Main

Road, Thickerrian, R.S. Pura,

District Jammu.

04. Mavish Jabeen

D/o Sh. Zubaid Hussain

R/o H.No. 95, Mohalla Saaj,

Thanamandi, District Rajouri.

05. Prabjot Kour

D/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh

R/o 33, Exchange Road Jammu.

06. Sherill Ratish D/o Sh. Ratish Gupta

R/o H.No. 74, Lane No. 2, Patel

Nagar, Talab Tillo, Jammu.

07. Deepraj Singh

S/o Sh Jatinder Singh

R/o H.No. 163 Sector -7 Lane No. 6

Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

08. Shantanu Gupta

S/o Sh. Vinay Gupta

R/o 209/A Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

09. Peerzada Sharik Gul

Sr. No. 101

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 2 of 36

S/o Sh. Showket Ahmad Masoodi

R/o New Colony Bijbehra,

Anantnag, Kashmir,

At Present: Hostel, Institute of

Dental Sciences Village Sehora,

Kunjwani Bishnah Road, Tehsil &

District Jammu.

10. Annie Jamwal

D/o Sh. Sumant Singh

R/o 11-Extn., Ward No. 9, Karan

Nagar Jammu.

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

v/s

01. Union of India through its Secretary

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Government of India, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi-110002.

02. Dental Council of India,

Alwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotla Road,

New Delhi-110002,

Through its secretary.

03. University of Jammu,

Baba Ambedkar

Marg, Jammu-180006

Through its Vice Chancellor

04. Institute of Dental Sciences,

Village Sehora, Kunjwani Bishnah

Road, Tehsil & District Jammu (J&K)

Through its Principal.

.....Respondent(s)

Through :-

Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with

Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC.

Mr. Ajay Abrol, Adv. for R-3.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Maini, Adv. with

Mr. Raj Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-4

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 3 of 36

(ii) OWP No. 1882/2017

Institute of Dental Sciences,

Village Sehora, Kunjwani

Bishnah Road, Tehsil & District

Jammu(Union Territory of

Jammu & Kashmir) (in short,

UT of J&K) Through its

Chairman, Dr. Raj Kumar

Suri, S/o Late Sh. Charanjit

Suri, R/o 64 A/D, Gandhi

Nagar, Jammu (UT of J&K)

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through:

Vs.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Maini, Adv.

with

Mr. Raj Kamal Gupta, Advocate.

01. Union of India through its

Secretary, Ministry of Health

& Family Welfare

Government of India, Nirman

Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.

02. Dental Council of India,

Alwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotla

Road, New Delhi-110002,

Through its Secretary.

03. University of Jammu,

Baba Ambedkar Marg,

Jammu-180006

Through its Vice Chancellor

.....Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with

Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC.

Mr. Ajay Abrol, Adv. for R-3.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 4 of 36

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR , JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. By this common judgment, both writ petitions, which arise

out of the same factual matrix and involve substantially

identical questions of fact and law, are being taken up

together for consideration and disposal. The controversy

relates to the admission of ten students to the Bachelor of

Dental Surgery (BDS) course in the Institute of Dental

Sciences, Sehora, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the

Institute”), for the academic session 2016–17. The Institute

is affiliated with the University of Jammu and has a

sanctioned annual intake of 100 students in the BDS

course. Of these 100 seats, 60 constitute the Management

Quota and the remaining 40 constitute the State Quota.

2. The case projected by the petitioners is that, prior to the

academic session 2016–17, admissions against the State

Quota seats were ordinarily made on the basis of merit

secured in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the

Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance

Examinations (“BOPEE”), whereas the Management Quota

seats were filled through the entrance examination

conducted by the Association of Private Unaided Medical

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 5 of 36

and Dental Colleges of Jammu and Kashmir, subject to the

applicable statutory and regulatory framework.

3. It is further pleaded that, during the academic sessions

2010–11 to 2015–16, ten seats were being filled from

amongst genuine NRI candidates on the basis of their inter

se merit determined with reference to marks obtained in the

qualifying 10+2 examination or equivalent examination. The

petitioners have referred, in this regard, to the regulatory

regime operating in the erstwhile State of Jammu and

Kashmir, particularly the Jammu and Kashmir Private

Medical Education Institutions (Selection and Admission)

Rules, 1996, as subsequently amended.

4. The petitioners also rely upon the distinction between the

regulatory position governing MBBS admissions and that

governing BDS admissions. It is their case that, although

the Medical Council of India (“MCI”), by circular dated

16.01.2015, had sought to prescribe Common Entrance Test

merit for NRI admissions to MBBS courses, the said circular

was subsequently set aside and withdrawn. According to the

petitioners, no corresponding circular had been issued by

the Dental Council of India (“DCI”) specifically requiring NRI

candidates seeking admission to the BDS course, under the

regulatory regime then prevailing, to qualify a particular

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 6 of 36

common entrance examination prior to the introduction of

NEET.

5. A material change in the statutory regime occurred with the

introduction of Section 10D by the Dentists (Amendment)

Act, 2016, with effect from 24.05.2016. Section 10D

contemplated a uniform entrance examination, namely the

National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (“NEET”), for

admission to undergraduate and postgraduate dental

courses. The controversy in the present proceedings,

however, arises in the context of the transitional academic

session 2016–17 and the exemption granted in respect of

Government/State Quota seats in certain States, including

Jammu and Kashmir.

6. The specific case of the petitioners is that, notwithstanding

the introduction of Section 10D, Government/State Quota

seats in Jammu and Kashmir were, for the academic session

2016–17, exempted from the requirement of admission on

the basis of NEET and continued to be governed by the State

admission mechanism. The significance of this exemption

lies at the heart of the present controversy, for the legality of

the ten admissions would substantially depend upon

whether the seats against which the students were admitted

retained their character as State Quota seats or were,

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 7 of 36

instead, independent NRI/Management Quota seats. For the

academic session 2016–17, all 60 Management Quota seats

in the Institute were admittedly filled on the basis of NEET

merit. There is no controversy regarding those admissions.

Of the remaining 40 State Quota seats, however, BOPEE

was able to fill only 22. Consequently, 18 seats earmarked

as State Quota seats remained vacant after completion of

the BOPEE process.

7. The case now specifically pleaded by the Institute is that, in

exercise of the authority available to it under the Jammu

and Kashmir Private M edical Education Institutions

(Selection and Admission) Rules, 1996, as amended from

time to time, it proceeded to fill those 18 vacant seats so

that sanctioned seats in a professional course would not

remain unutilised. Eight of those seats were filled by

candidates who had qualified NEET -2016, whereas the

remaining ten were filled from amongst genuine NRI

candidates on the basis of their inter se merit in the

qualifying examination. The admissions were completed

before 15.10.2016, i.e., within the permissible admission

schedule. The University thereafter issued roll numbers to

the students and the Institute furnished particulars of all

100 admitted candidates to the DCI.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 8 of 36

8. The dispute surfaced when the DCI, by communication

dated 23.08.2017, directed the Institute to discharge the ten

NRI students on the ground that they had not qualified

NEET-2016 and that their admissions were, therefore,

contrary to Section 10D of the Dentists Act and the

applicable regulatory framework. The record indicates that

the Executive Committee of the DCI had taken the relevant

decision on 09.03.2017, although the same was

communicated to the Institute only subsequently.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the Institute as well as the

affected students instituted the present writ pe titions.

Interim protection came to be granted in favour of the

students. The Institute contends that, by the time the

impugned direction was communicated, the students had

already completed a substantial part of the first year and

had progressed in their professional studies.

10. The University of Jammu and the DCI have opposed the

petitions. Their principal submission is that qualification in

NEET was mandatory for candidates admitted under the NRI

category during the academic session 2016–17. According to

them, the statutory exemption granted to Jammu and

Kashmir was confined to Government/State Quota seats

and could not be invoked to validate admissions made

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 9 of 36

against an independent NRI quota. Considerable reliance

has also been placed by the respondents upo n the

advertisements issued by the Institute itself. In the

advertisement dated 12.09.2016, the Institute required NRI

candidates to have qualified NEET. A subsequent

advertisement dated 17.09.2016 prescribed qualification in

the 10+2 examination with the requisite subjects and marks

and stated that preference would be accorded to candidates

who had qualified NEET. According to the respondents, the

advertisements demonstrate that the Institute itself

understood NEET qualification to be relevant, if not

mandatory, for NRI admissions. The DCI accordingly

maintains that, the ten students admittedly not having

qualified NEET-2016, their admissions were void ab initio

and incapable of being validated by subsequent events.

Reliance has been placed, inter alia, upon the order of the

Supreme Court in Vigyan Bharti Trust v. Union of India &

Ors. and upon the BDS Regulations governing admissions.

11. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Institute

moved an application dated 26.04.2022 seeking amendment

of its pleadings in light of subsequent judicial developments

concerning admissions of non-NEET-qualified candidates to

BDS courses during the academic session 2016 –17. The

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 10 of 36

amendment was allowed by this Court on 12.06.2023.In the

amended pleadings, the Institute specifically clarified that

the ten students were not admitted against any independent

NRI quota over and above the sanctioned or prescribed seat

matrix. Its case is that they were admitted against ten of the

18 State Quota seats which had remained vacant af ter

BOPEE had concluded its admission process.

12. The respondents contend that this amended pleading is an

attempt to improve upon or alter the original case, since the

students had initially been described as NRI -category

admissions. That objection, however, cannot, by itself,

determine the legality of the admissions. Once the

amendment was permitted by this Court and became part of

the pleadings, the Court is required to adjudicate the

controversy on the basis of the pleadings as they presently

stand, read with the contemporaneous record. More

importantly, nomenclature employed by a party cannot

conclusively determine the legal character of a seat. That

question must be answered by examining the sanctioned

seat matrix, the quota to which the seat originally belonged,

the applicable statutory regime and the circumstances in

which the vacancy arose and was subsequently filled.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 11 of 36

13. In the backdrop of the rival submissions, the following

principal questions arise for determination:

(i) Whether the Institute was legally competent

to fill the 18 State Quota seats which remained

vacant after completion of the BOPEE

admission process;

(ii) Whether, for the academic session 2016–17,

qualification in NEET was mandatory in respect

of Government/State Quota BDS seats in

Jammu and Kashmir;

(iii) Whether the ten students were admitted

against an independent NRI/Management

Quota or against seats which continued to form

part of the vacant State Quota; and

(iv) Depending upon the answers to the

aforesaid questions, whether the DCI was

justified in directing discharge of the ten

students solely because they had not qualified

NEET-2016.

14. Before examining the legal issues, certain foundational facts,

which are either admitted or not seriously disputed, deserve

to be identified. The sanctioned annual intake of the

Institute was 100 BDS seats. Sixty seats formed part of the

Management Quota and all 60 were filled on the basis of

NEET merit. The remaining 40 seats constituted the State

Quota. BOPEE could fill only 22 out of those 40 State Quota

seats. Eighteen seats consequently remained vacant.

Thereafter, eight NEET-qualified candidates and the ten

students with whom the present proceedings are concerned

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 12 of 36

were admitted. The total number of admissions did not

exceed the sanctioned intake of 100.

15. It is also significant that all the admissions in question were

completed before the prescribed cut-off date. Nothing placed

before this Court suggests that any of the ten students was

admitted after expiry of the permissible admission schedule.

This circumstance assumes importance when the

respondents' reliance upon decisions dealing with

admissions made after the statutory cut -off date is

considered.

16. SRO-297, which amended the Jammu and Kashmir Private

Medical Education Institutions (Selection and Admission)

Rules, 1996 notified through SRO -46, enhanced the

permissible percentage of NRI admissions from 5% to 10%.

In an institution having an annual sanctioned intake of 100

seats, the permissible number of admissions from amongst

NRI candidates could, therefore, extend to ten, subject to

fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by law.

17. The position concerning NEET during the academic session

2016–17 is equally material. Section 10D introduced NEET

as the uniform entrance examination for admission to dental

courses. However, the academic session 2016 –17 was a

transitional year in which an exception was made in respect

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 13 of 36

of Government/State Quota seats of States which continued

with their own entrance examination or admission

mechanism.

18. The communication dated 12.07.2017 issued by the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which forms part of

the record, lends support to the contention that

Government/State Quota seats in dental colleges situated in

Jammu and Kashmir, along with similarly situated States

and Union Territories, were exempted from the NEET

requirement for the academic session 2016–17, subject to

the State having exercised the permissible option.

19. Thus, the proposition that every BDS seat in Jammu and

Kashmir, irrespective of the quota to which it belonged,

necessarily required NEET qualification during the academic

session 2016–17 cannot be accepted without qualification.

The statutory and regulatory position requires the Court

first to identify the quota to which the disputed seats

belonged. If the seats were Management Quota/NRI Quota

seats, one set of consequences may follow. If, however, they

continued to be State Quota seats falling within the

transitional exemption, the matter would stand on an

entirely different footing.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 14 of 36

20. This brings the Court to what is, in substance, the central

issue in the case: whether the ten students were admitted

against an independent NRI quota or against ten vacant

State Quota seats. In determining that issue, a distinction

must necessarily be maintained between t he category or

status of a candidate and the character of the seat against

which the candidate is admitted. These are conceptually

distinct matters. A candidate may possess NRI status, but it

does not inexorably follow that every seat occupied by such

candidate acquires the legal character of an NRI or

Management Quota seat. The character of a seat must

ordinarily be traced to the sanctioned seat matrix and the

regulatory framework under which the seat was earmarked.

A seat which formed part of the State Qu ota does not

automatically cease to be a State Quota seat merely

because, after the State counselling mechanism has been

exhausted, it is filled by an eligible candidate belonging to a

particular category. Conversion of the character of a seat

must have some basis in law or in the applicable admission

rules; it cannot be inferred solely from the personal status of

the candidate eventually admitted against it.

21. In the present case, the sanctioned seat matrix assumes

decisive significance. All 60 Management Quota seats had

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 15 of 36

already been filled on NEET merit. There was, therefore, no

unfilled Management Quota seat against which the ten

disputed admissions could ordinarily be adjusted. What

remained vacant were 18 seats out of the 40 seats

earmarked for the State Quota. The record further indicates

that eight of those 18 vacant seats were filled by NEET-

qualified candidates. The remaining ten were filled by

candidates possessing NRI status. Unless the respondents

are able to demonstrate that, by operation of a statutory

provision or binding regulation, those ten seats stood

converted from State Quota seats into independent

NRI/Management seats, the mere NRI status of the

candidates cannot, by itself, bring about such conversion.

22. The respondents' argument, in substance, proceeds from the

description of the candidates as NRI candidates to the

conclusion that the seats must necessarily have been NRI

seats. Such reasoning reverses the proper inquiry. The first

question is: to which quota did the vacant seats belong?

Only thereafter does the question arise whether the

candidates selected for those seats satisfied the eligibility

and merit requirements legally applicable to that quota.

Tested on that basis, the material on record supports the

Institute's case that the ten admissions were made against

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 16 of 36

seats which had originally formed part of the 40-seat State

Quota and which had remained vacant after BOPEE could

fill only 22 seats. The admissions did not encroach upon the

60 Management Quota seats, nor did they increase the

sanctioned intake beyond 100.

23. The regulatory history relating to NRI admissions also

requires consideration. The MCI circular dated 16.01.2015

requiring NRI admissions to MBBS courses to be based

upon Common Entrance Test merit was quashed by the

Karnataka High Court. The Special Leave Petition against

that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on

06.07.2015, whereafter the circular was withdrawn. The

material placed before this Court indicates that no

corresponding DCI circular specifically governing NRI

admissions to BDS courses had been issued at the relevant

point of time.

24. Section 10D undoubtedly introduced NEET as the uniform

entrance examination. The Court cannot dilute that

statutory mandate. At the same time, the statutory mandate

has to be applied in the manner in which it operated during

the particular academic session under consideration. The

academic session 2016–17 was subject to the transitional

exemption relating to Government/State Quota seats. The

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 17 of 36

decisive question, therefore, remains whether the ten seats

fell within that exempted quota.

25. The petitioners have relied upon “T.M.A. Pai Foundation v.

State of Karnataka ”, (2002) 8 SCC 481 ; “Islamic

Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka ”, (2003) 6

SCC 697; P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005)

6 SCC 537; and Modern Dental College , decided on

02.05.2016, in support of the proposition that private

unaided professional institutions enjoy a measure of

autonomy in matters of admission, though such autonomy

remains subject to valid statutory regulation and to the

overriding requirements that the admission process be fair,

transparent, merit-oriented and non-exploitative.

26. Particular reliance has been placed upon P.A. Inamdar,

wherein the Supreme Court considered the position of NRI

seats in private professional institutions. The Supreme

Court recognised that a limited percentage of seats could be

made available to genuine NRI candidates, subject to

safeguards intended to prevent misuse of the quota and

subject also to the requirement that merit should not be

completely sacrificed. The principle emerging from P.A.

Inamdar is, therefore, not that an institution enjoys an

unrestricted power to admit any candidate merely on the

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 18 of 36

basis of NRI status. The principle is that a limited NRI

dispensation can be recognised, but it must operate bona

fide, within the prescribed ceiling, and through a

mechanism which does not altogether abandon merit.

27. In the present case, the ten candidates were selected within

the 10% ceiling contemplated under the applicable State

regulatory framework. Their inter se merit was determined

with reference to marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and

Biology in the qualifying examination. Significantly, it is not

alleged that any of the ten students was a fictitious or non-

genuine NRI candidate, that any lacked the minimum

academic qualification for admission to the BDS course, that

the selection was made after the cut-off date, or that the

sanctioned intake was exceeded. The objection of the

respondents is essentially confined to the absence of NEET

qualification. That objection would undoubtedly be decisive

if the ten seats were seats to which NEET mandatorily

applied. It loses that decisive character, however, if the seats

were vacant State Quota seats falling within the exemption

applicable to Jammu and Kashmir for the academic session

2016–17.

28. The next question is whether, after BOPEE had exhausted

the State counselling process, the Institute could lawfully fill

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 19 of 36

the seats which remained vacant. The record indicates that

candidates selected through BOPEE were required to report

to their allotted institutions on or before 28.09.2016.

Against the 40 State Quota seats available in the petitioner-

Institute, only 22 candidates ultimately joined through

BOPEE. The resultant 18 vacancies are supported by the

information furnished by BOPEE and brought on record

with the amended writ petition.

29. The Institute relies upon SRO-46 read with SRO-297 as the

source of its authority to fill the vacancies in the

circumstances then prevailing. The respondents have not

demonstrated that, after completion of the BOPEE process,

the Institute was under an absolute statutory prohibition

against filling the remaining seats before the final cut-off

date, even where otherwise eligible candidates w ere

available.

30. This aspect cannot be viewed in isolation from the purpose

underlying the admission schedule. The object of prescribing

a centralised selection process and a final cut-off date is to

ensure fairness, transparency, merit and certainty in

professional admissions. It is not ordinarily an object of the

regulatory regime that sanctioned seats in recognised

professional institutions should remain vacant despite the

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 20 of 36

availability of eligible candidates, unless the law expressly

produces that consequence.

31. Reference in this regard may appropriately be made to

“Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre v.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ”, AIR 2021 SC 3090.

The Supreme Court emphasised that keeping recognised

medical seats vacant entails not only financial loss to

educational institutions but also a national waste of

educational resources, and that a regulatory restriction

preventing the filling of seats must bear a rational nexus

with the object sought to be achieved.

32. The said decision cannot, of course, be read as authorising

an institution to disregard mandatory eligibility

requirements or to make admissions contrary to a statutory

scheme. Its relevance to the present case lies in the broader

principle that a regulatory regime should not be interpreted

so as to compel wastage of sanctioned professional seats

unless such consequence is clearly required by law. Here,

the Institute had 18 actual vacancies within its sanctioned

State Quota. The admissions were completed within the

prescribed time. The sanctioned intake was not exceeded.

There is no allegation that any candidate having a superior

enforceable claim to those seats was displaced. Nor has it

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 21 of 36

been shown that the filling of these seats prejudiced any

candidate selected through BOPEE.

33. In these circumstances, if the State regulatory framework

authorised the Institute to fill the residual vacancies after

exhaustion of the BOPEE process, the exercise of suc h

authority cannot be invalidated merely because the Institute

chose to fill otherwise vacant seats rather than allow them

to lapse, provided the candidates satisfied the eligibility

requirements applicable to those seats.

34. Much emphasis has been placed upo n the advertisements

dated 12.09.2016 and 17.09.2016. The first advertisement

required NRI candidates to have qualified NEET, whereas

the later advertisement stated that preference would be

given to NEET-qualified candidates. The advertisements are

undoubtedly relevant pieces of contemporaneous evidence

and cannot be ignored. They may indicate that the Institute

itself was uncertain about the exact regulatory position then

prevailing or initially proceeded on the assumption that

NEET qualification might be necessary. Nevertheless, an

advertisement issued by a private institution cannot enlarge

the scope of a statutory requirement, nor can it create a

statutory disqualification where none otherwise existed

under the governing law. The legality of an admission must

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 22 of 36

ultimately be tested against the statute, the applicable

regulations and the binding governmental framework, and

not solely against an assumption reflected in an

advertisement. The variation between the two

advertisements, in fact, reinforces the conclusion that there

was uncertainty during the transitional academic session.

While such uncertainty does not excuse a violation of a clear

statutory command, it becomes relevant where the very

applicability of the NEET requirement depended upon the

character of the seat against which the admission was

made.

35. The respondents have questioned the amended stand of the

Institute by contending that the students were originally

described as having been admitted under the NRI category,

whereas the Institute subsequently asserted that they had

been accommodated against vacant State Quota seats. This

objection does not merit acceptance as a ground for non-

suiting the petitioners. The amendment application was

considered by this Court and was allowed on 12.06.2023.

The amended pleadings have, therefore, become part of the

record and must receive consideration in accordance with

law. More importantly, the amendment does not alter

objective historical facts such as the sanctioned intake of

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 23 of 36

100 seats, the division of 60 Management Quota and 40

State Quota seats, the filling of all 60 Management Quota

seats, the filling of only 22 State Quota seats through

BOPEE, and the consequent availability of 18 State Quota

vacancies. Those facts are capable of independent

verification from the contemporaneous record.

36. The Court is concerned with the substance of the

transaction rather than merely the terminology employed by

the Institute at different stages. If the contemporaneous seat

matrix establishes that the seats occupied by the ten

students were vacancies within the State Quota, their

description as “NRI candidates” does not, by itself, establish

that they occupied ten additional or independent NRI seats.

37. A substantially similar controversy arose in 2018 Supreme

(Madras) 3458 proceedings concerning 13 students

admitted under the NRI category to a BDS course during the

academic session 2016–17 without NEET qualification. The

DCI had objected to those admissions as being contrary to

Section 10D of the Dentists Act. The Division Bench took

into account the peculiar transitional position prevailing

during the academic session 2016–17 and the exemption

from NEET applicable to State Government seats. Having

regard to the availability of Government/State Quota

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 24 of 36

vacancies, the Court directed that the students be

accommodated against such vacancies and directed the DCI

to approve their admissions so that their professional

education was not destroyed on account of the regulatory

confusion which had arisen.

38. The present case stands, in one mater ial respect, on a

stronger factual footing. In the Madras case, accommodation

had to be found against available Government Quota

vacancies. Here, according to the contemporaneous seat

matrix, 18 State Quota vacancies were available in the

petitioner-Institute itself. Recognition of the ten admissions

therefore neither requires creation of supernumerary seats

nor displacement of any regularly admitted candidate nor

adjustment in another institution.

39. Reference has also been made to proceedings before the

Gujarat High Court involving non-NEET-qualified candidates

admitted against vacant Government Quota BDS seats

during the academic session 2016–17. Since learned counsel

for the respondents expressed lack of instructions regarding

those proceedings and the complete record thereof is not

necessary for deciding the present petitions, this Court does

not consider it appropriate to rest its conclusion upon those

proceedings.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 25 of 36

40. Reliance by the respondents upon “Vigyan Bharti Trust v.

Union of India & Ors ” also does not carry their case

further. The factual setting of that case was materially

different, particularly in relation to admissions made beyond

the relevant cut-off date. The present admissions were

completed within the permissible admission schedule. The

dispute here does not concern the power of an institution to

make admissions after expiry of the cut-off date. It concerns

the different question whether NEET qualification was

indispensable for candidates admitted, before the cut-off

date, against seats which continued to form part of an

exempted State Quota. A precedent must be applied with

reference to the legal principle laid down and the material

facts in which that principle arose. A decision concerning

admissions made beyond a mandatory cut -off date cannot

automatically govern admissions made within time where

the principal dispute concerns the character of the seats

and the applicability of a transitional statutory exemption.

41. There is yet another aspect of the matter which, although

not by itself determinative of the legality of the admissions,

cannot be ignored. The Institute furnished particulars of all

100 students admitted during the academic session 2016 –

17 to the University of Jammu and the DCI in December

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 26 of 36

2016. The DCI was thus placed in possession of the relevant

particulars, including the particulars of the ten students

presently in question. The Executive Committee of the DCI

considered the matter on 09.03.2017 and resolved that the

ten students should be discharged because they had not

qualified NEET-2016. Yet the decision was communicated to

the Institute only on 23.08.2017, followed by another

communication dated 12. 10.2017. By that stage, the

students had already spent substantial time pursuing the

BDS course. The University of Jammu had issued roll

numbers to them and had permitted them to participate in

the academic process. Thus, the admissions were not

clandestine admissions discovered years later. The relevant

particulars had been placed before the authorities at an

early stage.

42. This Court is conscious that neither delay nor acquiescence

can validate an admission which is prohibited by statute. If

NEET qualification was an absolute statutory condition

applicable to these ten seats, mere delay by the DCI could

not confer legality upon admissions otherwise void. The

significance of the delay is different. Once this Court finds,

for independent reasons, that the seats were State Quota

vacancies falling within the peculiar exemption governing

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 27 of 36

the academic session 2016–17, the subsequent delay of the

authorities becomes relevant while considering the nature of

relief. Students who were permitted to continue their studies

while the authorities themselves took considerable time to

communicate and pursue the objection ought not, in the

absence of fraud or lack of basic eligibility, to bear the entire

burden of administrative uncertainty.

43. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the ear lier

judgment reported as 2012 Legal Eagle (J&K) 857 also

does not advance their case. The record indicates that, in

proceedings arising from that judgment, the Division Bench,

by order dated 31.01.2017, directed that the observations

made by the Writ Court should not be treated as a precedent

in future cases. The said judgment cannot, therefore, be

regarded as determinative of the controversy presently

before this Court.

44. The four questions framed in paragraph 17 may now be

answered. As regards the first question, the record

establishes that BOPEE could fill only 22 of the 40 State

Quota seats, leaving 18 vacancies. The Institute has

demonstrated its authority under the State regulatory

framework then prevailing to fill residual vacancies within

the sanctioned intake after completion of the BOPEE

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 28 of 36

process. No statutory provision has been brought to the

notice of this Court which, in the peculiar circumstances of

the academic session 2016 –17, required those seats

necessarily to remain vacant until they lapsed. The first

question is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners,

subject always to compliance with the eligibility

requirements legally applicable to those seats.

45. As regards the second question, although Section 10D

introduced NEET as the uniform entrance examination,

Government/State Quota BDS seats in Jammu and Kashmir

were, for the transitional academic session 2016–17, covered

by the exemption permitting continuation of the State

admission mechanism. NEET qualification was, therefore,

not an indispensable requirement merely because the

admission was to a BDS course, if the seat in question

genuinely formed part of the exempted State Quota.

46. As regards the third question, the sanctioned seat matrix

and the contemporaneous factual position establish that all

60 Management Quota seats had already been filled. The

vacancies which remained thereafter were 18 out of the 40

State Quota seats. The ten disputed admissions were

accommodated within those vacancies. The fact that the

candidates belonged to the NRI category did not, by itself,

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 29 of 36

convert the underlying State Quota seats into independent

Management/NRI Quota seats. As regards the fourth

question, once the seats are held to have retained their

character as State Quota seats and once such seats were

exempt from the NEET requirement during the academic

session 2016–17, the sole ground upon which the DCI

directed discharge of the students, namely their failure to

qualify NEET-2016, cannot sustain the impugned action.

47. The Court is not oblivious to the importance of maintaining

strict standards in admissions to professional courses.

Medical and dental admissions cannot be permitted to

depend upon unilateral institutional discretion contrary to

statutory requirements. The principles of transparency,

merit, fairness and adherence to the prescribed admission

schedule are indispensable, and courts must be slow to

validate admissions which circumvent those requirements.

The present case, however, does not involve admissions

beyond the sanctioned intake, admissions after the cut-off

date, candidates lacking basic academic eligibility, or

displacement of candidates selected through the prescribed

State process. Nor is there any allegation that the ten

students were not genuine NRI candidates or that their NRI

status was fabricated to facilitate admission.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 30 of 36

48. What the case presents is a peculiar consequence of the

transitional regulatory regime prevailing during the

academic session 2016–17. NEET had been statutorily

introduced, but Government/State Quota seats in Jammu

and Kashmir continued, for that academic session, under

the State admission mechanism. BOPEE could fill only 22 of

the 40 State Quota seats. Eighteen sanctioned seats

remained vacant. The Institute filled those vacancies before

the cut-off date, including ten candidates belonging to the

NRI category.

49. The respondents have proceeded substantially on the

premise that because the candidates were NRIs, their seats

must necessarily be treated as NRI/Management Quota

seats and must consequently satisfy the NEET requirement.

For the reasons already recorded, that premise cannot be

accepted. The legal character of a seat is not determined

exclusively by the personal category of its occupant. It is

determined principally by the sanctioned seat matrix and

the regulatory framework governing that seat. Once this

distinction is appreciated, the foundation of the impugned

action becomes unsustainable. The 60 Management Quota

seats had already been exhausted. The ten students were

accommodated within the 18 existing State Quota vacancies.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 31 of 36

The total sanctioned intake remained 100. No additional

seats were created. No candidate selected by BOPEE was

displaced. No admission was made beyond the cut-off date.

50. The amended DCI regulation relied upon by the respondents

for making NEET marks compulsory was published only on

12.07.2017, by which time the admissions for the academic

session 2016–17 had long since been completed. A

subsequently crystallised regulatory position cannot, in the

absence of an express retrospective mandate, be employed

to invalidate admissions made during an earlier academic

session under the legal regime then prevailing. The

subsequent conduct of the authorities fortifies this

conclusion for purposes of moulding relief. Complete

particulars of the admissions were furnished to the

University and the DCI. The University issued roll numbers.

The DCI considered the matter in March 2017 but

communicated the discharge direction only in August 2017.

The students thereafter continued under interim protection

granted by this Court.

51. It bears emphasis that the admissions are not being

sustained on considerations of sympathy or merely because

of the passage of time. Sympathy cannot override a statutory

prohibition. The conclusion rests principally upon the

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 32 of 36

character of the seats against which the students were

admitted and the regulatory exemption applicable to those

seats during the academic session 2016–17. The subsequent

passage of time, the conduct of the authorities and the

completion of the course are relevant only as additional

considerations; they are not the foundation of the students'

entitlement.

52. The decision of the Madras High Court supra concerning

similarly situated BDS students who had not qualified NEET

also illustrates the difficulties occasioned by the transitional

regulatory regime governing the academic session 2016–17.

In that case, relief was moulded by accommodating the

students against available Government/State Quota

vacancies. The present case stands on a stronger footing in

that no such external adjustment is necessary: sufficient

vacancies in the State Quota were available in the petitioner-

Institute itself. The principle noticed in Index Medical College

(supra) is also relevant to the limited extent that sanctioned

seats in professional courses ought not ordinarily to remain

unfilled without compelling regulatory justification. This

principle cannot, of course, override mandatory eligibility

requirements. However, where the disputed eligibility

requirement was itself inapplicable to the quota against

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 33 of 36

which the admissions were made, utilisation of otherwise

vacant sanctioned seats by academically eligible candidates

does not defeat the regulatory framework.

53. On a cumulative consideration of the statutory scheme, the

sanctioned seat matrix, the exemption applicable to State

Quota seats in Jammu and Kashmir for the academic

session 2016–17, the existence of 18 vacant State Quota

seats, and the authority available to the petitioner-Institute

under SRO-46 read with SRO-297, this Court finds that the

direction to discharge the ten students cannot be sustained.

Significantly, there is no allegation that the sanctioned

intake was exceeded or that the students lacked the basic

academic eligibility prescribed for admission to the BDS

course. The controversy appears to have arisen substantially

from the uncertainty attending the transitional regime of

2016–17 and from the respondents treating the category of

the candidates as determinative of the character of the

seats. The relevant consideration, however, is the seat

against which an admission was actually made. The

admitted position that 18 State Quota seats remained

vacant assumes significance in this regard.

54. During the pendency of these proceedings, and under the

protection of interim orders passed by this Court, the ten

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 34 of 36

students have completed the BDS course. This circumstance

does not cure an admission otherwise prohibited by law, nor

does it independently confer a right upon the students. It

nevertheless reinforces the consequences flowing from the

legal position already determined. At this stage, invalidating

the admissions would neither restore the seats to candidates

possessing a superior claim nor correct any excess over the

sanctioned intake. Nor would it advance the object

underlying Section 10D. It would merely nullify

qualifications earned over several years pursuant to

admissions made against sanctioned vacancies to which, for

the reasons already recorded, the NEET requirement was

not applicable.

55. Courts must undoubtedly guard against permitting equities

to be created on the strength of admissions made contrary

to law. But where, upon examination of the governing

statutory regime, the admissions are found not to suffer

from the illegality alleged by the regulatory authority, relief

cannot be denied merely because the litigation has remained

pending and the students have, in the meantime, completed

their course. The completion of the course does not create

the right; it only reinforces the need to give effect to the legal

right otherwise established.

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 35 of 36

56. Accordingly, both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned

communications issued by the Dental Council of India,

insofar as they direct the petitioner-Institute to discharge

the ten students on the ground that they had not qualified

NEET-2016, are quashed. It is declared that, in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, the ten students having

been admitted against vacancies forming part of the State

Quota for the academic session 2016–17, and such seats

being covered by the exemption from NEET applicable to the

State of Jammu and Kashmir for that academic session,

their admissions could not have been invalidated solely on

the ground that they had not qualified NEET-2016.A writ of

mandamus is, accordingly, issued directing the respondents

to recognise and treat the admissions of the ten students to

the BDS course for the academic session 2016–17 as valid

for all academic purposes.

57. The University of Jammu shall consequently process their

cases for issuance of BDS degrees, certificates and other

consequential academic documents, subject to each student

having fulfilled the requirements relating to academics,

attendance, internship, examinations and all other

conditions prescribed for award of the BDS degree. Any

consequential action taken solely on the basis of the

OWP No. 1884/2017 c/w

OWP No. 1882/2017 Page 36 of 36

communications quashed herein shall stand effaced and

shall not operate to the prejudice of the said students. Both

writ petitions, along with all connected applications, stand

disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Parihar)

Judge

JAMMU

27.08.2026

Rahul Sharma

Whether the judgment is speaking; Yes

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes