The Gujarat High Court restored the admission of an 18-year-old aspiring doctor who was denied an MBBS seat for lacking a mandatory document.

The court ruled that rejecting a student with a brilliant academic career for a procedural error, thereby benefiting a less meritorious candidate, does not align with the admission scheme.

The court also ordered the student, Stuti Patel, to provide an undertaking that she would serve an additional six months in rural regions.

In an oral order issued on Monday, November 17, Justice Nirzar Desai of the Gujarat High Court directed the respondent medical college to reinstate the student's admission, who had already paid the academic year's fees but failed to submit an important document, the Provisional Admission Order, during the process, Indian Express reports.

The counsel for Stuti Patel stated in court that the student made the mistake of believing "upon someone's advice" that she was not obliged to submit the Provisional Admission Order after paying the fee.

The college, the Narendra Modi Medical College in Ahmedabad, explained that the student's seat was declared vacant because she failed to submit her Provisional Admission Order. Consequently, the court directed the college to keep the seat vacant until it reached a final decision on her petition.

The counsel representing the medical college stated that it was "hard to believe that the petitioner was advised by someone that the submission form would not be required" and objected to the petitioner's request for another chance to claim the seat.

After confirming with the petitioner's advocate that the institution had taken the petitioner's tuition and reviewing the other facts presented to the court, the High Court stated in its oral ruling that the petitioner is a meritorious student.

According to her argument, the procedural error occurred "merely because of a misunderstanding".

The court also inquired whether the petitioner was willing to serve in rural areas after becoming a doctor for an additional six months beyond the period prescribed by the rules.

The petitioner responded that she was willing and filed an undertaking with the court.

The oral order of the court states, “If the rural areas of the state are going to get six months’ additional service of a qualified medical doctor, in such circumstances, by imposing a token cost of Rs 5,000/-, such procedural lacuna, which can be solely attributed to the petitioner, can be cured according to this court…”