The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly stated that courts cannot exercise discretionary powers to bypass clear legal eligibility criteria. A Division Bench ruled that a writ court’s equitable jurisdiction cannot be used to grant relief that contradicts fundamental legal principles.
Equitable jurisdiction allows courts to apply fairness-based principles rather than rigid legal rules. However, the Bench clarified, “Equity, in its true essence, does not entail granting that which the law does not recognize, nor does it permit benefits that directly contradict statutory mandates.”
Petition for BAMS Admission Rejected
The ruling came as the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed a petition seeking admission to a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) course. The petitioner was deemed ineligible under a specific clause of the admission notification because he had completed his qualifying examination from two different education boards.
The petitioner had passed the NEET-2024 exam and sought a directive to secure a seat in a private college. However, his admission was denied since he had completed his 10+2 from the Punjab School Education Board but later studied biology as an additional subject through the Himachal Pradesh Board.
The court upheld the admission rule, which requires candidates to complete their qualifying exams from a single board or university. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the Bench emphasized, “Possession of requisite educational qualifications is mandatory and should not be uncertain. Allowing uncertainty would open the doors for ineligible applicants, overwhelming institutions with such requests. Hence, a fixed cut-off date for determining eligibility is necessary.”
Judicial Discretion Cannot Override Statutory Rules
Applying this principle to admissions, the court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the mandatory educational requirements and was therefore not entitled to admission. The judgment read, “When juxtaposing the admission clause with the petitioner’s qualifications, it becomes evident that he does not meet the essential eligibility criteria. Therefore, he cannot be deemed qualified for the course in question.”
The Bench also clarified the limits of equitable jurisdiction, asserting, “A court’s power to invoke equity does not grant it the authority to issue orders in blatant disregard or ignorance of established legal principles.”
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding statutory mandates, ensuring that legal requirements remain the primary basis for admissions and employment eligibility.
