PRIYA GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .
Case number: C.A. No.-004318-004318 / 2012
Diary number: 30065 / 2011
Advocates: PRATIBHA JAIN Vs
D. S. MAHRA
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4318 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011)
Priya Gupta … Appellant
Versus
State of Chhatishgarh & Ors. …
Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4319 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011)
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Department of Medical and Family Welfare,
Government of Chhattisgarh, vide its letter dated 10th
September, 2010 cancelled the admission granted to Akansha
Adile and Priya Gupta in the MBBS course for the academic
1
Page 2
year 2006-07 in the Government NMDC Medical College,
Jagdalpur (for short, the Jagdalpur College) with immediate
effect.
3. Aggrieved by this order of the Government, both the
students challenged the legality and correctness of this action
in separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 9th August,
2011, held that admission to these petitioners had been given
ignoring more meritorious and suitable candidates, which
amounted to violation of natural justice to such other
candidates and declined to interfere in the impugned order
dated 10th September 2010, hence giving rise to the present
appeals. The appellants had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test
conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic year
2006. The results were declared in July 2006 and Appellant
No.1, Priya Gupta, secured general rank 1614 while Appellant
No.2, Akansha Adile, secured general rank 3893. As the latter
belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, her rank in that
category was 396. This entrance exam was conducted by the
State as per the notification of the State Government dated 8th
March, 2006 under the ‘Chhattishgarh Medical and Dental
2
Page 3
Graduate Examination Rules, 2006’ (Chhatisgarh Chikitsha
Tatha Dant Chikitsha Snatak Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2006)
(for short, ‘the Rules’). These Rules provided for allocation of
seats and reservation, the process for admission to the vacant
seats, selection procedure as well as cancellation of admission
and the matters incidental thereto.
4. The State Government, vide its letter dated 14th August,
2006, had granted permission for the starting of admission
procedure for the academic year 2006-07 at the Jagdalpur
College. The annual admission capacity was 50 seats which
were to be filled up by the candidates who had qualified PMT
2006 in the order of their merit.
5. The first counseling was held on 21-22nd July, 2006 but
obviously, at that time, the Jagdalpur College had not been
given permission to commence admission to the MBBS course.
The counseling was conducted for medical colleges at Raipur
and Bilaspur and also for the Raipur Dental College. 18 per
cent of seats were to be reserved for allotment under the All
India Quota and the Central Pool quota. However, the State
Government vide letter dated 21st August, 2006 is stated to
have informed the Jagdalpur College that two seats out of the
3
Page 4
total seats were reserved for allotment under the Central Pool
Quota and no seats were reserved under All India Quota. Upon
receipt of recognition, only 48 seats were offered for admission
to the students on 22nd – 23rd August, 2006. The Central Pool
Quota seats were not filled up and were allegedly not made
available to the candidates who appeared for that counseling.
The Dean of Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education, State of Chhattisgarh on 30th September, 2006 that
on that date, 48 candidates had taken admission and two seats
were lying vacant. This information was sent in response to
inquiry by the Director, Medical Education in this regard and
directions were sought by the Jagdalpur College for filling up of
vacant seats. On the same day, the Director, Medical
Education, directed that the seats should be filled from the
merit list and the candidates could be contacted on telephone.
If contact was not possible, admission could be given to the
candidates who were available in the Jagdalpur College. On
30th September, 2006 itself, the two vacant seats were given to
the available candidates, who are the appellants herein.
6. As already noticed, the Jagdalpur College was granted
permission for starting the academic procedure for the session
4
Page 5
2006-2007 by the Government of Chhattisgarh. This letter
reads as under:-
“Consequent to the letter No. U.12012/206/2005/M.E.(P.II) dated 15th July, 2006 of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India, the State Government hereby grants permission for starting admission procedure for the academic session 2006-07 in the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur.
2. The annual admission capacity of the said Medical College would be 50 seats and the candidates qualified in P.M.T. 2006 would be given admission on the basis of merit. Necessary action be ensured as per the aforesaid.”
7. 48 students under different categories were given
admission as per the list published by the Jagdalpur College on
30th September, 2006. Vide letter dated 30th September, 2006,
the Jagdalpur College and other medical colleges in the State
had been informed by the Directorate of Medical Education,
State of Chhatisgarh that 30th September, 2006 being the last
date for admission as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, a
list of the students who had been given admission may be sent
to the Directorate and guidance sought from the Directorate, if
any seats were lying vacant. The guidance was received by the
5
Page 6
Jagdalpur College by letter dated 30th September, 2006, which
reads as under :-
“On the above subject, information about 2 vacant seats has been given by you. In order to fill these up contact the candidates over telephone. If contact could not be established with any candidate then fill up the vacant seats from amongst the candidates available in the college according to merit.”
8. On that very date, inter alia, an order was issued by the
Dean of Jagdalpur College constituting a Committee to give
admission to the available candidates in accordance with merit
of the PMT. This letter reads as under:-
“As per the directions received from the Directorate of Medical Education, the vacant seats are to be filled from the available candidates according to the merit in P.M.T. For this purpose, Counseling Committee is constituted as follows:-
1.Dr. M.S. Banjari, Assistant Vice Principal
2.Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Assistant Vice Principal
3.Shri Padmakar Sasane, Demonstrator
The aforesaid Committee after examining the certificates etc. of the available candidates recommend for admission on the basis of merit.”
9. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College was further informed by
the Committee, on 30th September, 2006 itself, that only two 6
Page 7
candidates, i.e., the appellants were available and they were
given admission to the vacant seats. This letter reads as
under:-
“In compliance of your letter No. 233/GAMC/06 Jagdalpur, dated 20.9.2006 the certificates etc. of the candidates available on today’s date have been examined. Only the following two candidates, who were present have been found to be eligible to be given admission –
1. Ku. Priya Gupta Merit No. UR 1614
2. Ku. Akanksha Adile Merit No. SC 396 /3893
Prescribed fees have been got deposited from the aforesaid candidates. They can be given admission against the vacant seats.”
10. Having granted admission to these two appellants, the
Dean of the Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education as follows:-
“With reference to the above, it is submitted that according to the directions given by you in the letter under reference the following two candidates, present on 30.9.2006, have been given admission in the 2 seats remained vacant in this college.
1. Ku. Priya Gupta Merit No. UR 1614
2. Ku. Akanksha Adile Merit No. SC 396/3893
It is further submitted that the admission procedure for all the 50 seats of this college has been completed.”
7
Page 8
11. As is evident from the above letters, all the events had
taken place on 30th September, 2006 itself. Appellant No.2,
Akansha Adile is stated to be daughter of the Director, Medical
Education Government of Chhattisgarh, one Dr. S.L. Adile, who
is supposed to be the highest authority in the State directly
responsible for admission to the medical colleges, including
Jagdalpur College. The appellants were given admission and
they joined the course of MBBS.
12. The State of Chhattisgarh, vide notification No. F-16-
1/2001/75/55 dated 8th March, 2006 had framed the Rules.
Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of these Rules it had been
specifically prescribed that in all Government Medical and
Dental Colleges, there will be a reservation of 15 per cent of
seats under All India quota and these seats will be filled on the
basis of All India Entrance Examination. Further, under sub-
rule (2), it was specified that in the said colleges, there shall be
a prescribed quota of 3 per cent reserved for admissions from
the Central Pool, which would be filled from the names
nominated by the concerned/authorised officer.
8
Page 9
13. It emerges from the record that a Right to Information
application was filed before the Directorate General of Medical
Services, Medical Examination Cell, New Delhi by one Dr. Anil
Khakhariya. The Assistant Director General, ME, Government of
India, had forwarded the complaint to the State Government
and the Jagdalpur College, and vide letter dated 13th
September, 2009 informed Dr. Anil Khakhariya that an inquiry
committee consisting of three members had been constituted
by the Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh to
examine whether the admission of the two candidates, namely
Akansha Adile and Priya Gupta, was valid or not. The
Committee submitted its Report with the following findings:-
“A. No Admission was granted to any students in All India quota on the basis of letter of Director General of Health Services (ME), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. Of India no. U-11011/1/2006-ME dated 08/08/2006.
B. Two students namely Miss. Akansha Adile & Miss Priya Gupta got admission in Medical College Jagdalpur in 2006 by the state PMT merit on the last date of the admission i.e. 30/09/2006.”
14. The above inquiry report was submitted by the Dean of
Jagdalpur College to the Directorate. However, on 22nd July,
2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, 9
Page 10
Government of Chhattisgarh was informed by the Assistant
Director General (Medical Education), Government of India that
the admission of Akanksha and Priya had been on the basis of
fake letters purported to be issued from the Directorate
General of Health Services (DGHS) and that their admissions
may be cancelled with immediate effect and action taken
report be submitted to the DGHS. In furtherance to this letter,
the Deputy Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Chhattisgarh, issued an order dated 10th
September, 2010 stating that the admission of these two
appellants was not in accordance with the provisions of the
Rules and other guidelines/provisions with regard to allotment
of seats under the All India Quota and the admission was
cancelled with immediate effect. As already noticed, this letter
of cancellation of admission was challenged by the appellants
before the High Court.
15. The Assistant Director General, (Medical Education), New
Delhi, has filed an affidavit taking up the stand that the Central
Board for Secondary Education, New Delhi had been entrusted
with the responsibility to conduct All India Pre-Medical and Pre-
Dental Examinations, but allotment of seats would be
10
Page 11
undertaken by the DGHS. The candidates equal to the number
of seats available for allotment, together with the wait-listed
candidates are called for counseling. The allotment of seats is
made on merit and only two rounds of counseling are
permitted. In the counseling, the candidates have to appear in
person. In Chhattisgarh, the allotment of All India Quota seats
in the Pt. JLN Medical College, Raipur was made vide letter
dated 8th August, 2006 on the basis of vacancy position
furnished by that college. The allotment of Akansha Adile and
Priya Gupta in the Jagdalpur College, was also allegedly made
by the same letter under 15 per cent All India Quota of 2006.
However, the DGHS denies making any allotment of seats to
the appellants by such letter.
16. Therefore, according to the Union of India, it was a case of
fake admission to the Jagdalpur College, taken up in
furtherance to a purported letter issued by the answering
respondents, which was now found fake. Vide letter dated 19th
April, 2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family
Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh had been requested to
personally look into whether the allegations made by Dr. Anil
Khakharia under the Right to Information Act, as mentioned
11
Page 12
above, were correct. Letters dated 6th August, 2010 and 24th
August 2010 were also exchanged between the parties. In
response to the letter of the DGHS dated 6th August, 2010,
the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, vide letter dated 24th September, 2010,
communicated the information that admissions given to
Akansha Adile and Priya Gutpa in the MBBS course for the
academic year 2006-07 were against the norms and the Rules
and the admission was cancelled immediately by the
Department vide order dated 10th September, 2010. Further, it
is the clear stand of the Union of India that the order dated 10th
September, 2010 was passed in accordance with law and the
judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition does
not call for any interference.
17. The petitioners have impugned the judgment of the High
Court on the following grounds:
1) The order dated 10th September, 2010 has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither hearing
nor copy of the inquiry report was given to them prior to
cancellation of admission.
12
Page 13
2) The report submitted by the Inquiry Committee had
specifically recorded a finding that the admission of both the
appellants was not granted in furtherance to the letter of the
DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 and that they had received
admission in the Jagdalpur College through the State PMT on
the basis of merit on the last date of admission, i.e. 30th
September, 2006 and only upon recommendation of a duly
constituted counseling Committee. In face of these positive
findings, the order of cancellation of admission suffers from
legal infirmity and as such, the judgment of the High Court
sustaining this order is in error of law.
3) The Jagdalpur College was granted permission to admit
students by the Central Government vide its letter dated 15th
July, 2006 and by the Government of the State of
Chhattisgarh only on 14th August, 2006. Two seats had not
been offered for admission in the counseling held on 22nd
-23rd August, 2006 and 48 seats were offered for admission.
The two remaining seats reverted from the Central Pool
quota to the State Government only on 30th September,
2006 which were then given to the appellants in accordance
13
Page 14
with the Rules. Therefore, no fault is attributable to the
appellants.
4) The petitioners have already pursued the MBBS course for a
considerable period and, in fact, have completed a major
part of the course, having written their final examination
and thus, to cancel their admission at this stage would be
unjust and unfair. It will be inequitable to the petitioners to
cancel their admission at this stage and would cause them
irreparable loss and damage, besides wasting the seats and
public money.
5) The High Court judgment is also challenged on the ground
that no candidate entitled to admission has been denied
admission and also that no candidate has complained about
or objected to the admission of the appellants.
18. It deserves to be noticed that the stands taken by the
Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh in the present
petitions are not exactly the same. According to the DGHS,
Respondent No.2 herein, the letter dated 8th August, 2006 is
fake and no seats had been allotted to the Jagdalpur College.
Seats were allotted only to Pt. JLN Medical College, Raipur. The
letter dated 8th August, 2006 is alleged to have been sent by 14
Page 15
the Assistant Director General (ME), Ministry of Health and
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Having found the letter to
be fake, the DGHS directed cancellation of the admission
granted to both the appellants. According to the State of
Chhattisgarh, the State had to distribute only 41 seats of the
Jagdalpur College as 15 per cent were reserved for All India
quota and three per cent for Central Pool quota. It is their
stand that Dr. S.L. Adile, Respondent No.3 is the father of
Akanksha Adile and is the highest officer in the State for
controlling pre-medical education and post graduate admission.
Seats reserved, if any, would have reverted back on 23rd
August, 2006 to Respondent No.3 and no action was taken to
fill up these seats at that time. Suspiciously, the seats were
filled only on 30th September, 2006, by giving the seats to the
appellants. They support the case of the Union of India that the
letter dated 8th August, 2006 is fake and claim that the two
seats were deliberately not offered for the second round of
counseling, which was held on 22nd-23rd August, 2006. All other
candidates had been absent on 30th September, 2006 as they
had not been contacted. The entire admission process of the
appellants was vitiated by fraud.
15
Page 16
19. The admission to MBBS and BDS courses, whether at State
level or All India level has ever been a matter of concern for the
courts. Large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the
admission process or admission of some particular candidates
on varied grounds, like admission being contrary to Rules, the
principle of merit being disturbed, admissions being arbitrary,
etc. and there is still flagrant violation of the dicta of this Court,
as issued in various judgments, as well as of the Rules and
Regulations wherever framed by the State or Central
Government or Medical or Dental Council of India. The present
case is one example of violation of procedure and admissions
being arbitrary. Before we examine the intricacies of
procedural irregularities in the present case and the arbitrary
admission of the appellants, we must examine the background
in which admissions of the present kind are normally
questioned before the courts of competent jurisdiction.
20. Admission to professional colleges are governed by the
judgment of this Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. The
framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some
detail by this Court. However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep
16
Page 17
Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 654], the
concept of an All India quota came to be introduced while
determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such
admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the under-graduate
courses were reserved for this purpose, which came to be
modified to 15 per cent seats for All India quota in the case of
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad &
Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22]. In the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.
v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459],
this Court also passed directions in relation to the manner of
notification/announcement of details, results and counseling for
admission, in that case, for post graduate admissions, which
were to be published in two successive issues of newspapers,
including one national paper in English and at least two local
papers in the language of the State. Declaration of results
would be made four weeks after the examination and academic
courses were to mandatorily begin on the 2nd of May every
year. Again, in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal
Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 627], as some
of the States were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this
Court took punitive action against the State of Uttar Pradesh
and even contemplated action under the Contempt of Courts 17
Page 18
Act, 1971. Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), this
Court has always directed that merit alone must be the criteria
for admission to MBBS courses. To make such admissions more
subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain further
directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc.
etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc. [(1993)
3 SCC 332]. This Court clarified that candidates who have been
allotted a seat in the second round of counseling will have to
join the college within 15 days from the date of their personal
appearance and the whole allotment and admission process to
15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over before the 30th
September of each year, the remaining seats having been
surrendered back to the college/State. Various judgments of
this Court have sought to carry forward, with greater clarity,
the fundamental requirement as stated in TMA Pai (supra) that
the admission process should be fair, transparent and non-
exploitative. Every subsequent judgment of this Court has
attempted to elucidate one or other aspect of this principle.
Having noticed that there have been irregularities in
maintaining the prescribed schedule and that the last few days
of the declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an
exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees for 18
Page 19
securing admission and thereby defeating the principle of
admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the
case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
[(2005) 2 SCC 65] applied the schedule notified by the Medical
Council of India (MCI) in Appendix ‘E’ of the Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 and directed its
strict adherence. The said Schedule reads as under :
“APPENDIX E TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION
PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE
Schedule for admission
Seats filled up by the Central Government through All-India Entrance Examination
Seats filled up by the State Governments/ institutions
Conduct of entrance examination
Month of May Month of May
Declaration of result of qualifying exam/ entrance exam
By 5th June By 15th June
First round of counseling/ admission
To be over by 30th June
To be over by 25th July
Last date for joining the allotted college and course
Within 15 days from the date of allotment of seats
31st July
Second round of counseling for allotment of seats from waiting list
To be over by 8th August
Up to 28th August
Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counseling from the waiting list
Within 15 days from the date of allotment of seat (seats vacant after 22nd August will be surrendered back to the States/colleges)
31st August
19
Page 20
Commencement of academic session
1st of August
Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason
30th September”
21. The Court noticed that the holding of 10+2 examination
and declaration of results is also of importance for the entire
admission process and, therefore, directed strict adherence to
the Schedule in all respects and by all concerned. The date of
30th September was stated not to be the date of normal
admission but is to give opportunity to grant admission against
stray vacancies. The Court clarified that adherence to the time
schedule by everyone was a paramount concern. In that case,
the Court issued a specific direction to all the State
functionaries, particularly the Chief Secretaries and heads of
the concerned Ministries/Departments participating in the
States/Union Territories, adopting the time schedule and
holding the State examination, to ensure declaration of results
on or before 15th June, 2005. They were also required to ensure
the appropriate utilization of All India quota, to fullest extent,
by timely reporting to the DGHS by the Deans of various
colleges or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of
20
Page 21
the acceptance or rejection of seats by the students after the
first counseling of All India/State Quota.
22. Further, this Court even took pains to declare the need for
adherence to the schedule for receipt of applications for
establishment of new medical colleges or seats and the process
of the review and recommendation by the Central Government
and the Medical Council of India. In para 28 of the judgment,
the Schedule under the 1999 Regulations are referred to, that
reads as under :
“SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
Stage of processing Last date
1. Receipt of applications by the Central Government
From 1st August to 31st August (both days inclusive) of any year
2. Receipt of applications by MCI from the Central Government
30th September
3. Recommendations of the Medical Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter of intent
31st December
4. Issue of letter of intent by the Central Government
31st January
5. Receipt of reply from the applicant by the Central Government requesting for letter of permission
28th February
21
Page 22
6. Receipt of letter from the Central Government by the Medical Council of India for consideration for issue of letter of permission
15th March
7. Recommendations of the Medical Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter of permission
15th June
8. Issue of letter of permission by the Central Government
15th July
Note: (1) The information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the applicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of India through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Government.
(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medical college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government.”
23. Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College &
Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 623], this Court
cautioned all concerned that the schedule specified in Mridul
Dhar (supra) should be maintained and regulations should be
strictly followed. The Court suggested that the process of
inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of
permission should also be done well in advance to allow time
for setting right the deficiencies pointed out.
22
Page 23
24. In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar
Sinha & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624], a Bench of this Court took
exception to the non-adherence to the time schedules and
reiterated that the admissions to medical colleges and post-
graduate courses were governed by the orders of this Court
and the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India,
which must be strictly followed. This Court issued a warning,
that if there was any violation in future, the same shall be
treated as default and viewed very seriously. Further, in the
case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002)
7 SCC 258], this Court declared two very important principles.
Firstly, it declared that mid-stream admissions should not be
permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of compassion in
review of such admissions, this Court also held that late or mid-
stream admission, even just four months after beginning of the
classes, cannot be permitted.
25. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the
regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these standards
cannot be deviated from. Reference can be made to State of
M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83 – paras
24 and 26]; Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v.
23
Page 24
State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004) 11 SCC 755 – para 20];
Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18] and Harish
Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 69 –
paras 14 to 21].
26. What is of greater significance is that this Court has not so
far considered or stated as a principle, what consequences
should follow where the Central Government, or the State
Government or Medical Council of India or the College itself,
with impunity, violate the time schedule, regulations and order
of merit to give admission to students in an arbitrary and
nepotistic manner. Also, we must consider what preventive
steps can be taken to avoid such repetitive and intentional
defaults, as well as undue exploitation of the class of students.
Admissions based on favouritism necessarily breach the rule of
merit on the one hand, while on the other, they create
frustration in the minds of the students who have attained
higher rank in the competitive entrance examinations, but have
not been admitted. We propose to specifically address this
concern in this judgment. From the above discussion and
reference to various judgments of this Court, it is clear that
24
Page 25
adherence to the principle of merit, compliance with the
prescribed schedule, refraining from mid-stream admissions
and adoption of an admission process that is transparent, non-
exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of the entire
scheme.
27. Now, let us examine the adverse consequences of non-
adherence to the prescribed schedules. The schedules
prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part
of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of
the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and
form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India,
which also have the force of law and are binding on all
concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can
have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given
situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of
India, the Government of India, State Government, University
or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for
allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation
in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested
with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time
schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the
25
Page 26
judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India
Regulations. Inter alia, the disadvantages are:-
(1) Delay and unauthorized extension of schedules defeat the
principle of admission on merit, especially in relation to
preferential choice of colleges and courses. Magnanimity in
this respect, by condoning delayed admission, need not be
shown by the Courts as it would clearly be at the cost of
more meritorious students. The principle of merit cannot be
so blatantly compromised. This was also affirmed by this
Court in the case of Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors. [(2005) 9 SCC 186].
(2) Mid-stream admissions are being permitted under the
garb of extended counseling or by extension of periods for
admission which, again, is impermissible.
(3) The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay in the
commencement of courses etc., encourage lowering of the
standards of education in the Medical/Dental Colleges by
shortening the duration of the academic courses and
promoting the chances of arbitrary and less meritorious
admissions.
26
Page 27
(4) Inequities are created which are prejudicial to the
interests of the students and the colleges and more
importantly, affect the maintenance of prescribed standard
of education. These inequities arise because the candidates
secure admission, with or without active connivance, by the
manipulation and arbitrary handling of the prescribed
schedules, at the cost of more meritorious candidates. When
admissions are challenged, these students would run the risk
of losing their seats though they may have completed their
course while litigation was pending in the court of competent
jurisdiction.
(5) The highly competitive standards for admission to such
colleges stand frustrated because of non-adherence to the
prescribed time schedules. The admissions are stretched to
the last date and then admissions are arbitrarily given by
adopting impermissible practices.
(6) Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/approved colleges
and seats deprives the students of their right of fair choice of
college/course, on the strength of their merit.
(7) Preference should be to fill up all vacant seats, but under
the garb that seats should not go waste, it would be 27
Page 28
impermissible to give admissions in an arbitrary manner and
without recourse to the prescribed rule of merit.
28. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the
Governments and the Universities are expected to act in
tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition for
starting of the medical courses and grant of admission are
strictly within the time frame declared by this Court and the
regulations. It has come to the notice of this Court that despite
warnings having been issued by this Court and despite the
observations made by this Court, that default and non-
adherence to the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously,
matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by different
authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarily
and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this
Court. In the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. &
Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355], the Court observed that the process of
counseling cannot go on continuously for a long period and the
resultant chain reaction should be checked. Some seats may
have to be left vacant per compulsion, but, the process of
admission should stand the test of rationality. There should be
exceptional and fortuitous circumstances to justify late
28
Page 29
admission. In the case of Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS
[(1994) 2 SCC 370], the Court was even compelled to issue
notice of contempt to the Director General of Health Services
as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
be not taken for non-compliance with the scheme framed by
the Court for consideration of applications for transfer of
students between colleges and they be not punished
accordingly. The consistent effort of this Court to direct
corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being
thwarted by motivated action on the part of the concerned
authorities, but there has also been a manifold increase in
arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in
generating more and more litigation with the passage of time.
This Court, thus, now views this matter with greater emphasis
on directions that should be made to curb incidents of
disobedience.
29. The maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere places
an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it resolves the
causes of litigation in the country.
30. Thus, the need of the hour is that binding dicta be
prescribed and statutory regulations be enforced, so that all
29
Page 30
concerned are mandatorily required to implement the time
schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not
even advisable to keep some windows open to meet a
particular situation of exception, as it may pose impediments to
the smooth implementation of laws and defeat the very object
of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed upon
serious consideration by all concerned. They are to be applied
stricto sensu and cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of
some economic or other interest of any institution, especially,
in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the above-
stated principles. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct
of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of
merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically,
the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of
selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for
their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all
concerned,.
(i) The commencement of new courses or increases in seats
of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be
approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th
30
Page 31
July of each calendar year for the relevant academic
sessions of that year.
(ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter,
issue appropriate directions and ensure the
implementation and commencement of admission process
within one week thereafter.
(iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor
the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any
recognition or approval for the current academic year. If
any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it
shall only be operative for the next academic year and not
in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval
is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the
name of that college and all seats shall be included in both
the first and the second counseling, in accordance with
the Rules.
(iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which
the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July
of the respective year shall not be included in the
counseling to be conducted by the concerned authority
31
Page 32
and that college would have no right to make admissions
in the current academic year against such seats.
(v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be
granted only through the respective entrance tests
conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the
body of the private colleges. These two are the methods
of selection and grant of admission to these courses.
However, where there is a single Board conducting the
state examination and there is a single medical college,
then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India
Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can
be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in
order of merit.
(vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection
processes have to be effected only after due publicity and
in consonance with the directions issued by this Court.
We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving
admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In
fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional
circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the
prescribed selection process is to join the academic course
32
Page 33
of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second
counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court
has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v.
UOI & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third counseling is not
contemplated or permitted under the entire process of
selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.
(vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All
India Quota, they should positively be allotted and
admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th
September of the relevant year and not by holding an
extended counseling. The remaining time will be limited
to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from
exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All
candidates should join the academic courses by 30th
September of the academic year.
(viii) No college may grant admissions without duly
advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the
same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice
board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc.
Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure
that the admissions are given on merit and after due
33
Page 34
publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary
and casts the shadow of favouritism.
(ix) The admissions to all government colleges have to be on
merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by
the nominated authority, while in the case of private
colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th
April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant
admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test
conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish
to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in
the competitive examination collectively held by the
nominated agency for the private colleges. The option
exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change.
This choice should also be given by the colleges which are
anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the
date specified in these directions.
31. All these directions shall be complied with by all
concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India,
Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and
medical and dental colleges and the management of the
respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any
34
Page 35
default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to
overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the
following consequences and penal actions:-
a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or
fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu
shall be liable for action under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested
party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High
Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
b) The person, member or authority found responsible for any
violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and
punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear
that violation of these directions or overreaching them by
any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination,
misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public
servant.
c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be
liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who
might have suffered losses as a result of such default.
35
Page 36
d) There shall be due channelization of selection and admission
process with full cooperation and coordination between the
Government of India, State Government, Universities,
Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the
colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as
per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be
complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform
pattern for concerted action, according to the framed
scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in
this behalf.
e) The college which grants admission for the current academic
year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent
to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for
withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in
addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are
denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in
the college.
f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second
counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be
deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the
36
Page 37
respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the
basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test.
g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and
University to inform the State and the Central
Government/competent authority of the seats which are
lying vacant after each counseling and they shall furnish the
complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the
respective states, immediately after each counseling.
h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner.
32. Having dealt with, in general, the directions that this Court
would issue to prevent the evils of arbitrariness and
discrimination from creeping into these selection/admission
processes, which are required to be transparent, fair and non-
exploitatory, we shall now proceed to deal with the facts of the
present case.
33. The present case is a glaring example of calculated
tampering with the schedule specified under the regulations
and the judgments of this Court, with a clear intent to grant
admission to less meritorious candidates over and above the
candidates of higher merit. To put it simply, it is a case of
37
Page 38
favouritism and arbitrariness. This also chronicles how, either
way, the careers of the students are jeopardised. The High
Court had cancelled the admission of the appellants by a
detailed and well-reasoned judgment. However, as a result of
interim orders granted by the Court, both the appellants had
already completed four years of the studies at the time of the
High Court decision. They are stated to have completed their
final exam now. Despite having lost their case before the High
Court, the appellants continued to pursue their professional
courses because of the interim orders of the Court. Now, the
plea of inequities is being raised.
34. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the
admission relates to the academic year 2006. The Central
Government vide its letter dated 15th July, 2006 had granted
approval and leave to admit the students to the Jagdalpur
College. Thereafter, permission to commence admission was
granted by the Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh on 14 th
August, 2006. The name of Jagdalpur College was not in the
brochure published for admission. The first counseling was, in
fact, conducted by 25th – 26th July, 2006 in which the College did
38
Page 39
not participate and the second counseling was done on 22nd-
23rd August, 2006.
35. In paragraph 2 of State Government’s approval letter, it
was clearly stated that the capacity of the Jagdalpur College
would be 50 seats and the candidates qualified in the PMT 2006
would be given admission on the basis of merit. After issuance
of this letter, the college was included in the second counseling
and as already noticed, it had allocated 48 out of the 50 seats.
36. On 8th August, 2006, a letter is stated to have been issued
by the DGHS stating that 15 per cent of the total seats reserved
for All India Quota, 2006, if remaining vacant, on or after 23rd
August, 2006, may be treated as surrendered to the State
Quota. To this letter a statement of the same date was
annexed, which allegedly gave two seats from the All India
Quota to the present appellants. As per that statement, the
seats were allocated on 8th August, 2006. From the record
before us, it is clear that between 14th August, 2006 and 30th
September, 2006, no correspondence was exchanged between
the parties. This is despite the fact that the Government of
India had required the college and the State Authorities to
inform them of the details of the admissions given to the
39
Page 40
students as well as the details of the Quota seats, if the seats
were vacant. All India Quota seats, which had not been filled
till 22nd August, 2006 would be surrendered in favour of the
State. Strangely, nothing has been placed on record to show
that any of the concerned State authorities, including the
college, adhered to the requirement of informing the DGHS or
other authorities with regard to the status of admissions. On
30th September, 2006, the Director, Medical Education,
Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to the Dean of the College,
requiring that the Jagdalpur College provide the up-to-date list
of the students admitted to it and if there were any seats
remaining vacant, guidance was to be taken from the
Directorate of the State Government.
37. Another letter written by the Director, Medical Education,
to the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and referring to their letter
of the same date, which stated that two seats were vacant, in
turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and the candidates
be contacted over telephone. If contact could not be
established with any candidate, then the Jagdalpur College was
directed to fill up the seats with the candidates physically
present and available at the Jagdalpur College, according to
40
Page 41
merit. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College, on that very day,
constituted a Committee of Asst. Vice-Principals and
Demonstrator of the Jagdalpur College to examine the
certificates etc. of the available candidates and recommend the
names on the basis of merit. Again, on that very day, the
Committee recommended the names of the two appellants,
declaring them to be eligible for getting admissions. More
strangely, the Committee also notes that the fees from the
candidates had been deposited and they could be given
admission. Then, vide another letter dated 30th September,
2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director, Medical
Education that the two appellants have been given admission
and the admission process for 50 seats had been completed.
We must notice that there is nothing placed on the records of
the Court as to what steps were taken by the Jagdalpur College
to inform all the other candidates of counseling on the last
date. Also strange was the direction of the Directorate that the
candidates should be informed on telephone. Even if this
direction was of some content and meaning, there is still no
material to show how many candidates were actually informed
on the telephone that there would be counseling for two seats.
Thus, the questions remain open, as to the reason for total 41
Page 42
abandonment of the procedure of informing all eligible
candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats were
available for admissions, who all had actually appeared for the
counseling, how only two candidates who even according to the
State Government were not contacted on telephone, were
alone present before the Committee and immediately found to
be eligible for admission. This entire exercise smacks of
arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory ex facie. It is
brought to our notice and is clear from the record that the
Respondent No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in
Chhattisgarh, is the father of Akansha Adile, Appellant no.2 and
that speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted to
the two appellants.
38. The methodology adopted and the manner in which
admissions were given to the present appellants leaves no
doubt in the mind of the Court that this process was neither fair
nor transparent. In fact, within a few hours, the entire process
of admission was completed, indicating that the whole exercise
was undertaken only with the object of granting admission to
the appellants, that too, as if no other candidates of merit were
available for these two seats. This view is entirely
42
Page 43
substantiated by the records produced before us. The
prescribed procedure for grant of admission was given a go by
and the rule of admission on merit stood frustrated as a
consequence of such admission process. One fails to
understand why no preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant
seats were taken by any of the competent authorities involved
in the entire process of selection and admission to MBBS
courses. The students who had undertaken the PMT
examination had been allocated seats in the college on 23rd
August, 2006. Not even a single document has been placed on
record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006 to 29th September,
2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant seats. Everybody waits
for the last date which, in fact, is the date for joining the
courses and not admission, whereafter the entire machinery in
the Centre, State Government and the college acts so swiftly
that within hours, the entire admission process is concluded to
grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty of
fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the Jagdalpur
College, the Directorate as well as the Committee constituted
for counseling/selection could find only the candidates at Merit
Nos. 3893 and 1614 suitable, completely ignoring all the
candidates being higher in merit than these two appellants, 43
Page 44
who must also be waiting for admission to the MBBS course.
Strangely, the merit ranks of these two appellants, as given in
the letter of the DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 were 2196 and
2203 respectively. From whatever angle this case is examined,
only one conclusion is possible and that is, that the allocation of
seats was totally arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid
down. We also would like to make a clear mention of the
displeasure of this Court to the three members of the Selection
Committee who found only these two candidates eligible and fit
to be granted admission to the MBBS courses on the last day
for admissions. To say the least, this Committee acted in
undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure of
admission and certainly contrary to the judgments of this Court.
We direct the Dean of the Jagdalpur College to convey the
displeasure of this Court to the members of the Selection
Committee and the same be placed on their respective service
records.
39. Now, we may come to the inquiry that was conducted by a
three member committee and which recorded the finding that
we have already noticed in paragraph 13 of the judgment. This
inquiry was initiated in furtherance to an application made
44
Page 45
under the Right to Information Act, regarding the letter dated
8th August, 2006 according to which the admission in the
Jagdalpur College, particularly to these two appellants, was
made in an arbitrary and unfair manner. The stand of the
Union of India before this Court is that the letter dated 8 th
August, 2006 was never issued by the DGHS and is a fabricated
document. In face of that stand, we are unable to appreciate
as to how the Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the
admission to the two appellants was not given in furtherance to
the letter dated 8th August, 2006, but validly granted on 30th
September, 2006 instead. They were expected to examine this
matter in greater depth and record proper findings. We also
cannot understand as to how they have recorded that both the
appellants got admission in the Jagdalpur College by State PMT
merit. Their report does not even mention if they had verified
the fact that notices had been issued to all the concerned
persons on 30th September, 2006 and if other students had
been contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was
even made on 30th September, 2006 or even prior thereto to
put these two vacant seats on the internet or notice board of
the colleges so as to enable the students of higher merit to
seek admission to the MBBS course in the Jagdalpur College. 45
Page 46
This aspect attains a greater significance in view of the fact
that the seats were not allotted in the second counseling itself
on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Jagdalpur College, the
Directorate of the State Government as well as the Union of
India made no effort and did not act in coordination, to allot
these two seats to the candidates in accordance with merit in
the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee appears to be
a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon examining
the entire matter in its proper perspective. It was not only
expected of the Committee to examine the documents which
were made available to it, as is recorded in the report, but also
to call for all such necessary documents which were relevant
and could have bearing on the reference made to it. The
Committee has not even cared to know why everything was
completed on 30th September, 2006 and how nobody else
except these two appellants were available for admission from
amongst candidates in the entire State.
40. Another aspect of this inquiry is that, even as on 30th
September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which quota these
two vacant seats belonged to. According to the State of
Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of the 15 per cent All
46
Page 47
India quota which stood surrendered after 23rd August, 2006.
According to the appellants, they were Central Pool quota seats
which stood surrendered to the State on 30th September, 2006
only. According to the Union of India, they had not made any
allotment to the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College
from the All India Quota, and even the code number given on
the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the
Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not ad idem
as to which quota the seats belonged to and who was the
competent authority to allot the seats, none of them had any
business to allot these two seats in such an arbitrary manner.
Even now, there is no clarity as to how and under what quota
the Jagdalpur College has granted admission to these two
appellants. The inquiry report, in fact, does not help to resolve
the issue and cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any
finding in favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings
returned by the Inquiry Committee appear to be inconclusive,
uncertain and vague. Be that as it may, there is no escape
from returning the finding that admission of both the appellants
was made in a most improper and arbitrary manner. The whole
exercise was undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only
47
Page 48
one aim in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be
given admission in the Jagdalpur College.
41. The Government of India, taking the view that these were
All India Quota seats which had been wrongly allocated to these
two appellants in a manner contrary to the relevant Rules, vide
its letter dated 22nd March, 2010, directed cancellation of the
admissions of both the appellants. In furtherance to the letter
issued by the Central Government, the State Government vide
its letter dated 10th September, 2010, actually cancelled the
admissions of both the appellants.
42. This cancellation was challenged by the appellants before
the High Court, which allowed continuation of study under
interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ petitions filed
by these appellants. At that time, they had already completed
more than four years of the MBBS course to which they were
admitted. Today, they have already appeared for their final
examination.
43. We are also in agreement with the findings recorded by
the High Court that the Jagdalpur College ought to have
declared these two seats as being available for admission when
the counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006 and that 48
Page 49
there was violation of the basic principles of equality of
opportunity and of equal consideration for allotment of seats.
Candidates of higher merit stand excluded. Another
challenge which has been raised on behalf of the appellants
before us is that the order of cancellation dated 10th
September, 2010 was passed without affording any opportunity
of hearing to these two appellants and, therefore, the order is
liable to be set aside, being violative of principles of natural
justice. It is, in fact, not in dispute before us that no specific
notice had been given to the appellants before the impugned
order was passed. We are of the considered view that it is not
necessary for this Court to examine this submission in any
greater detail because the appellants have now had two
occasions to put forward their claim before the Court. The High
Court has considered various aspects of the case and has given
a complete hearing to the appellants. We have also heard the
appellants at great length and have examined their challenge
to the order dated 10th September, 2010. No prejudice has
been caused to them, inasmuch as they have pursued their
studies despite cancellation of admission and have now been
duly heard by the High Court, as well as this Court. Hence, this
ground of challenge does not, in any case, survive, particularly 49
Page 50
in view of the fact that we have also held that the admission to
these appellants was given in a completely arbitrary and unfair
manner.
44. The admission of the appellants was cancelled by the
State Government which, even under the Rules, is the final
competent authority for such purposes. In the present case,
the mischief played by the concerned persons came to the
notice of the Central Government which directed cancellation of
the seats and required the State Government to act in
accordance with law.
45. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by way
of last resort, advanced an argument that even if the
admissions are found to be irregular by the Court, still, to
balance the equities, the Court can direct surrender or creation
of equal number of seats in the next academic year by the
Jagdalpur College. Further, it is also contended that since the
appellants have already completed substantial part of their
professional course, it will cause serious prejudice and
irreparable loss to them if their admissions are cancelled,
particularly when the students are not at fault and it is the
Jagdalpur College or the Directorate of the State Government
50
Page 51
which were instrumental in allotting two seats to these
students. To further substantiate this plea, another argument
advanced is that in the Government Colleges, the admission
fee is very low and the Government spends a considerable sum
in imparting the medical education to the students of those
colleges. Thus, even that expenditure of the State would be
wasted if admissions were now cancelled.
46. It was also argued with some emphasis that the appellants
are not at fault. They had taken the entrance examination and
were given seats by the concerned authorities. Even if the
authorities have committed some irregularity, the appellants
should not be made to suffer at the very end of their
professional course. To substantiate this premise, they relied
upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of A. Sudha v.
University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537, Amandeep
Jaswal v. State of Punjab (2006) 9 SCC 597, R. Vishwanatha
Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105 and
Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat &
Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 617.
47. We have perused the judgments of this Court relied upon
by the petitioners. Firstly, they were delivered on their own
51
Page 52
facts and the Court has not stated any absolute principle of law,
which would operate as a valid and binding precedent.
Secondly, in all these cases, the Court had returned the finding
that other authorities or rule-making bodies concerned were at
fault and not the students. In the case of Chowdhary Navin
Hemabhai (supra), the Court had noticed that the fault was of
the rule making authority in not formulating the State Rules,
2008 in conformity with the Medical Council of India
Regulations, while in the case of A. Sudha (supra), the Court
found that the Principal of the institute was at fault and he had
made incorrect statements in writing, which were acted upon
by the students bona fide.
48. In the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the
fault is attributed to all the stakeholders involved in the process
of admission, i.e., the concerned Ministry of the Union of India,
Directorate of Medical Education in the State of Chhattisgarh,
the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the three Members of
the Committee which granted admission to both the appellants
on 30th September, 2006. But the students are also not
innocent. They have certainly taken advantage of being
persons of influence. The father of the Appellant No. 2,
52
Page 53
Akansha Adile was the Director of Medical Education, State of
Chhattisgarh at the relevant time and as noticed above, the
entire process of admission was handled through the
Directorate. The students well knew that the admissions can
only be given on the basis of merit in the entrance test and
they had not ranked so high that they were entitled to the
admission on that basis alone. In fact, they were also aware of
the fact that no other candidate had been informed and that no
one was present due to non-intimation. Out of favouritism and
arbitrariness, they had been given admission by completing the
entire admission process within a few hours on 30th September,
2006.
49. Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable.
Some party or the other would suffer a set back or adverse
consequence from the order of the Court. On the one hand, if
admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically
completed their MBBS course would lose their professional
education as well as nearly five years of their life spent in such
education. If their admissions are protected, then the standard
of education, the merit of the candidates and the desirability of
the persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated. The
53
Page 54
best solution to such problems is strict adherence to the time
schedule, procedure for selection/admission and strict
observance of the Medical Council of India Regulations, by all
concerned. Once these factors are adhered to, not only would
such situation not arise, but also it will prevent avoidable
litigation before the Courts. The persons who violate the time
schedule to grant admissions in an arbitrary manner and by
colourable exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical
Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this Court,
should be dealt with strictly by punishment in accordance with
law, to prevent such mischief from repeating. In the present
case, we are informed that the students have already sat for
their final examination and are about to complete their courses.
Even if we have to protect their admissions on the ground of
equity, they cannot be granted such relief except on
appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, other
candidates of higher merit have been denied admission in the
MBBS course. Secondly, they have taken advantage of a very
low professional college fee, as in private or colleges other than
the government colleges, the fee payable would be
Rs.1,95,000/- per year for general admission and for
management quota, the fee payable would be Rs.4,00,000/- per 54
Page 55
year, but in government colleges, it is Rs.4,000/- per year. So,
they have taken a double advantage. As per their merit, they
obviously would not have got admission into the Jagdalpur
College and would have been given admission in private
colleges. The ranks that they obtained in the competitive
examination clearly depict this possibility, because there were
only 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College and there are hundreds
of candidates above the appellants in the order of merit. They
have also, arbitrarily and unfairly, benefitted from lower fees
charged in the Jagdalpur College.
50. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
though we find no legal or other infirmity in the judgment under
appeal, but to do complete justice between the parties within
the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we would
permit the appellants to complete their professional courses,
subject to the condition that each one of them pay a sum of
Rs.5 lakhs to the Jagdalpur College, which amount shall be
utilized for developing the infrastructure in the Jagdalpur
College.
51. We have not and should not be even understood to have
stated any precedent for the cases like grant of admission and
55
Page 56
leave to complete the course like the appellants in the present
case.
52. We are imposing heavy costs upon these appellants to
ensure that such admissions are neither accepted nor granted
leave to complete their medical courses in future.
53. We would, thus, hereby issue directions on the one hand
and order initiation of contempt proceedings against all the
defaulting parties under the provisions of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.
ORDER :
Accordingly, we order as follows: -
1. Though, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the
appellants and the judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to
complete their MBBS course as general candidates in the
Government Medical College, Jagdalpur, subject to their
56
Page 57
paying a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from
today.
2. In the event of default of payment or failure to file proof of
payment in the Registry of this Court, not only will the
present appeal stand dismissed on merits, but we also
direct that the exam results of the defaulting appellant will
not be declared, they will not be conferred with the degree
of MBBS by the Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council
of India shall not register their names on the rolls
maintained by it or the State Council, as the case may be.
3. For the reasons afore-stated, if their admissions are
cancelled, there being no claimants for these seats, the
seats will go waste and the entire expenditure incurred by
the State would also be wasted. After so many years, it
would be an exercise in futility to cancel their admissions,
which, but for the interim orders, could be avoided. An
undue advantage from the interim orders has accrued in
favour of the appellants.
With all the humility at our command, we request the
High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed
time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. 57
Page 58
We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier,
that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may
consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear
the main petitions finally, subject to convenience of the
Court. We may refer the dictum of this Court in the case of
Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences [(2004) 6 SCC 76, para 14] in this regard.
4. We have categorically returned a finding that all the
relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their
duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time
schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit
has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have
prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance
with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is
imperative for this Court to ensure proper implementation
of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the
Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook the
arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the
concerned authorities/colleges.
5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings
against the following under the provisions of the Contempt
58
Page 59
of Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the following,
to show cause why they be not punished in accordance
with law.
a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Union of India.
b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education.
c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee.
e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the Selection Committee.
f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection
Committee.
g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of
India.
6. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which day
the matter shall be listed before this Court. Registry shall
maintain separate file for that purpose.
7. All concerned authorities are hereby directed to carry out
the directions and orders contained in this judgment,
59
Page 60
particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment
forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the
academic year 2012-2013 itself.
54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned
authorities, forthwith, for strict compliance and adherence,
without demur and default.
55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
…………………………….,J. [A.K. Patnaik]
…………………………….,J. [Swatanter Kumar]
New Delhi; May 8, 2012
60