IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
IA NO.____________ OF 2016
IN
SLP(C) NO. 26558/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS
DR. D Y PATIL VIDYAPEETH & ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

IA FOR IMPLEADMENT AS RESPONDENTS

Advocate FOR IMPLEADER: VISHWA PAL SINGH

Index

S.No.
1.

Particulars
IA
for
IMPLEADMENT
RESPONDENTS
IN
SLP(C)
26558/2016 with affidavit

Page No.
AS
NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
IA NO.____________ OF 2016
IN
SLP(C) NO. 26558/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS
DR. D Y PATIL VIDYAPEETH & ORS

...RESPONDENTS

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Ravi Mehra s/o Late Mr. Krishan Kanhaiya Mehra r/o c301, Park View, City-1, Sector-48, Sohna Road,
Gurgaon.
2. Rohit Bhatia s/o Mr. K.K. Bhatia r/o E-23, Anjari Nagar,
New Delhi-110029
3. Suraj Mehta s/o Sh. Gurdev Saran Mehta r/o 153,
Vigyapan, Mayur Vihar Ph-1, Extension Delhi
4. Mrs. Arunna Khanna w/o Dr. Balvesh Khanna r/o 564,
Sector 14, Faridabad
5. Rajesh Singhal s/o Late Sh. Sat Narain Singhal, r/o CP42, Pitampura, Delhi.
6. Manish Gupta r/o Sh. Gopi Chand, r/o CP-42, Pitampura,
Delhi
7. Dr. Rajni Dutta w/o Dr. P.P. Singh, r/o D-39 Janpura
Extension No.14.
8. Sanjeev Arora r/o Sh. Tilak Raj Arora, r/o CU-92, 3rd
Floor Pitampura, Delhi

9. Sunil Sehgal s/o Late Sh. R. K. Sehgal r/o 4, Bharat

Apartment Sector13 Rohini, Delhi.
10. Praveen Sonjea, S/o B.K. Soneja r/o H. no. 2630,
Sector-57 Gurgaon.
11. Dr. Sanjay Goel, s/o Shri K.K. Goel, r/o R-1/39,
Rajanagar, Ghaziabad.
12. Harish Kwatra, s/o Late Sh. K. C. Kwatra r/o G-8/12,
Sector 11 Rohini, New Delhi.

(being the parties sought to be added as Respondents to this

petition).

AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING THE

STUDENTS APPEARED IN NEET-1 & NEET-2

PARENTS

AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT

TO,
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS

COMPANION

JUSTICES

OF

THE

HONBLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

OF

1. This application is filed in SLP(C) No. 26558/2016 titled

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Vs DR. D Y PATIL
VIDYAPEETH & ORS and for the sake of brevity, the facts
and circumstances mentioned in SLP(C) No. 26558/2016
are not repeated and may be considered as part of this
application.
2. That

Respondents/impleader

impleadment

application

had
praying

filed

the

present

that

their

children

appeared for NEET examination as per the judicial order

passed by this Honble Court. After completion of NEET
examination
examination

successfully
through-out

conducting
India.

centralized

Thereafter

since

centralized counselling is not a issue before this honble

Court nor any court of law has direct to hold centralized
counselling and even Central Government by MCI were
holding centralized counselling for 15% seats through All
India Quota and rest of 85% seats were filled by State
college by applying in each college.
3. That the present instant IA has been filed by parents of
students/candidates appeared in NEET-I & NEET-II who
successfully passed the centralized/single medical exam
i.e. NEET which was conducted in compliance of various
orders passed by this Honble Court and impleader children
as well as students throughout India in different States

applied

to

various

medical

colleges

and

deemed

universities including those of Maharashtra separately by

separate applications, with their NEET scores.
4. That initially State of Maharashtra has decided to hold
centralized counselling for unaided private colleges and
deemed university. Therefore while complying the State
Government order, all students applied through single
window system on 22.8.2016.
5. That DMER had opened its central counseling as per the
notification dated 22.08.2016 for which we duly applied.
But on reaching the counselling venue on the scheduled
date and time, to our surprise, we were informed that the
counselling process has been stayed by an interim High
court order, without notice the counselling was cancelled.
No prior notification had been put up on any concerned
website.

That

students who

were

eligible

for

single

counselling come with their parents on that day of

counselling

and

even

paid

for

travelling

and

other

expenses.
6. Thereafter when the issue was challenged by Deemed
university before Honble High Court of Bombay and the
issue was decided by order dated 30.8.2016 in favor of
Deemed University that each students has to applied

separately to each college and they will be allocated seats

in accordance with the merits of NEET scores.
7. That in compliance of directions passed by Honble High Court
of Bombay, petitioners children again applied on dated
7.9.2016 to all deemed universities and awaited the merit
lists of individual colleges. And as per the ranking based on
NEET scores, we were called for counseling where our
children were shortlisted. Whosoever got the confirmed
seat submitted the original certificates and paid the fees as
per the rules and regulations. Once the formalities were
completed under one college children could not attend
counseling in other colleges where they were shortlisted
based on their merit since they had already paid the fees
and submitted their original certificates.
8. That various students are affected by chaos created by
State of Maharashtra, they have no clear mind to the
counselling. In this litigation, question to be posed that
as to why should the children who have been admitted
on pure merit in these deemed universities now suffer.
As we could not attend the counsellings at other places
with confirmed seats, how do we ensure seats to the
children now. That parents from different states with
their children attended first single counselling and then
separate

counselling for each college and thereafter

when they are selected, seats allocated, fees paid and

even classes where attended by students throughout
Maharashtra, the reasoned order passed by the Honble
High Court of Bombay should not be disturbed.
9. That every child was given the opportunity to apply
through All India Quota to all private and deemed
university colleges. Children who were interested in
deemed universities applied.

The system of merit was

followed, then why are the kids made to suffer in this

entire legal battle.
10.

It is therefore, also most respectfully prayed that

this Honble Court be pleased to consider this IA on

following grounds:a) That students selected and allocated seats in State
of Maharashtra in various colleges are already
attending

classes

as

per

the

directions

and

reasoned order passed by Honble High Court of

Bombay and therefore any interference by this
Honble Court will demoralized the students.
b) That again allowing centralized counselling will be a
back door entry for students who has not initially
applied for counselling. Because there is a high
possibility that all students who have not applied

for

first

centralized

counselling

and

then

on

separate counselling for each colleges and not

selected in other states will again applied for
counselling if order to be held and whole merit list
will be disturbed.
c) That it is important to note that UGC is silent all
this time and took out notice on 15.9.2016 when
the issue was prejudice before this Honble Court
and such a notification is illegal as to why it was
not issued for Deemed Universities throughout
India and only issued in respect of Deemed
University established in Maharashtra.
d) That the rule should be same for all the deemed
universities across the country. There was no
central

counseling

for

deemed

Karnataka so how do the parents

universities

in

assume that

there would be a problem in other states.

e) That the admissions were done by the deemed
universities based on directions by honble HC and
the writ petition was filed in the middle of the
admission process when most of the admissions
had already been done and this Honble Court
should always consider while deciding the issue on

merit as moral of children selected, seat allocated

and admitted in any college be not disturbed.
f) That impleader parents are not against the idea of
central counselling but it should have been clear to
all the parents and children from the beginning
before the admission process and not after the
whole process. It should be a prospective decision
and not a retrospectively applied one.
g) That any further delay in the decision as to
counselling will impact the children emotionally and
mentally and their carrier are at stake.
h) That it is submitted that impleader/parents of
students are satisfied on the transparency, fairness
in

the

admissions

conducted

by

deemed

universities.
i) That already all the originals are submitted with the
respective colleges by each students at the time of
allocation of seats and therefore they were not able
to attend counselling in other states also.
j) That mere holding counselling in one state will not
solve problem of student in respect of money and
time. If every State start doing counselling for their
private

and

deemed

university

then

probably

number of counselling will be around 55-60 and

hence contention of state is not correct. Therefore
central counselling is only solution where eligibility
is for every one. Hence, the notification issued by
UGC is not correct, illegal in sense as it was not
applicable

for

all

the

deemed

universities

throughtout India and after thought.

k) That DMER order came on 9th by which time
applications were filed and counselings done and
classes were already started before the hearing in
the Supreme Court and stay order against the
order passed by Honble High Court of Bombay.
11.

It is therefore submitted that the parents and their

childrens appeared for NEET-I & NEET-II would be

directly affected by decision of State of Maharashtra to
hold centralized counselling when students were already
admitted

in

Colleges/Universities

and

thus

the

Respondents/Applicants seek to implead them as party

respondents.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to direct that:-

a)

issue an order impleading the applicants/impleaders

as respondents in SLP(C) No. 26558/2016;

b)

pass such other and further order/orders as this

Honble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case

AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER

BEING DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn by

Filed By

Arun Bhardwaj
Ronak karanpuria

Drawn on:

17.09.2016

Filed on:

17.09.2016

VISHWA PAL SINGH

Advocate for the respondents