Aneesh D. Lawande Vs State of Goa

Page 1

1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 598 OF 2013

Aneesh D. Lawande & others … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Goa and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The present litigation exposits a sad sad scenario. It is

sad because a chaos has crept in in the lives of some

students and it is further sad as the State of Goa and its

functionaries have allowed ingress of systemic anarchy

throwing propriety to the winds possibly harbouring the

attitude of utter indifference and nurturing an incurable

Page 2

2

propensity to pave the path of deviancy. The context is

admission to Post Graduate courses in a single Government

medical college at Goa. The insensitivity of the authorities

administering medical college admissions was seriously

decried by a three-Judge Bench in Convenor, MBBS/BDS

Selection Board and others v. Chandan Mishra and

others1 and further echoed in Medical Council of India v.

Madhu Singh and others2. The Court in Chandan Mishra

(supra) had approvingly reproduced a sentence from the

decision of the High Court that proclaimed in sheer anguish:

“Shakespeare in Othello has written “Chaos is come again”.

2. The saga of anguish continues with constant

consistency. In Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of

1

1995 Supp (3) SCC 77

2

(2002) 7 SCC 258

Page 3

3

Health Sciences and others3 a two-Judge Bench

commenced the judgment thus: -

“Admission to the medical courses (MBBS and BDS) has consistently been a subject of judicial scrutiny and review for more than three decades. While this Court has enunciated the law and put to rest the controversy arising in relation to one facet of the admission and selection process to the medical courses, because of the ingenuity of the authorities involved in this process, even more complex and sophisticated sets of questions have come up for consideration of the Court with the passage of time. One can hardly find any infirmities, inaccuracies or impracticalities in the prescribed scheme and notifications in regard to the process of selection and grant of admission. It is the arbitrary and colourable use of power and manipulation in implementation of the schedule as well as the apparently perverse handling of the process by the persons concerned or the authorities involved, in collusion with the students or otherwise, that have rendered the entire admission process faulty and questionable before the courts. It is the admissions granted arbitrarily, discriminately or in a manner repugnant to the regulations dealing with the subject that have invited judicial catechism. With the passage of time, the quantum of this litigation has increased manifold.”

3. We have begun with such a prefatory note and

referred to the aforesaid pronouncements as the facts, as

3

(2012) 7 SCC 389

Page 4

4

have been uncurtained, would shock one’s conscience. A

deliberate labyrinth which not only assaults the majesty,

sanctity and purity of law, but also simultaneously creates

a complex situation requiring this Court to intervene in a

different manner to redeem the situation as far as

possible so that there is some sanguine cathartic effect.

4. Presently to the facts. The State of Goa has

framed a set of Rules, namely, the Goa (Rules for

admission to Postgraduate degree and diploma courses of

the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules,

2004 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 3 deals with eligibility,

preference and order of merit. Rule 3(1) deals with

eligibility criteria and Rule 3(2) with preference. Rule 3(3)

of the Rules deals with order of merit. The relevant part of

the said Rule is reproduced below:-

“(3) Order of Merit – (i) The order of merit shall be determined by the percentage of aggregate marks.

(ii) Aggregate Marks – The percentage of aggregate marks shall be arrived at by totaling the marks obtained in all the subjects of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd MBBS Examinations and reducing it to a percentage after the following deductions: -

Page 5

5

(a) 5 per cent of marks shall be deducted for every failure from the marks of the subject failed

(b) 5 per cent of marks shall also be deducted as above, if the student takes a drop in the subject.

(iii) If two or more candidates secure the same marks in the merit list as drawn above, the marks obtained in the subject shall decide the merit. In case the subject marks are also the same, the total marks secured by the candidates in the Final M.B.B.S. Examination, or total marks of IInd MBBS Examination or total marks of the 1st M.B.B.S. Examination, depending on whether the candidate is seeking registration in the clinical or para- clinical or pre-clinical subjects respectively, shall decide the merit.

(iv) A candidate, who has failed three times in a particular subject, shall not be eligible for registration for the degree or diplomas for which the marks of that subject are considered.

(v) For admission to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses, the candidates belonging to the General Category will be required to obtain minimum 50% and the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes will be required to obtain minimum 40%, aggregate marks as determined above.”

5. The said Rule governs the admission to the

singular medical college and the lone dental college, both

Government colleges affiliated to Goa University. On

Page 6

6

9.8.2012 the Government of Goa in the Department of

Public Health, through its Under Secretary (Health)

communicated to the Dean, Goa Medical College, as

follows: -

“I am directed to refer to your letter No. Acad/141/ NEET/12/G.M.C./245 dated 27.6.2012 on the subject cited above and to convey approval of the Government for implementation of the Medical Council of India’s Notification on the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the Under Graduate and Post Graduate students from the Academic Year 2013-14.”

6. In pursuance of the decision taken the

students appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance

Test (NEET) held in November-December, 2012 for the

medical courses and in January, 2013 for the dental

courses. It is worthy to note that introduction of NEET was

made by issue of a notification by the Medical Council of

India in exercise of power conferred on it by Section 33 of

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The said notification

as well as the notification issued by the Dental Council of

India came to be challenged in Christian Medical

Page 7

7

College Vellore and others v. Union of India and

others4.

7. During the pendency of the writ petitions as well as the

transferred cases which were transferred from various

High Courts, this Court on 13.12.2012 passed the

following order:-

“Place these matters on 15th January, 2013.

In the meantime, the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India, as well as the States and Universities and other institutions, will be entitled to conduct their respective examinations for the M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-Graduate courses, but shall not declare the results of the same, until further orders of this Court.

Learned counsel for the respective parties are all directed to make available their written submissions by 7th January, 2013.

Let copies of this Order be made available to the advocates-on-record for the respective parties for communication to concerned Authorities.

Wide publicity may also be given to this Order by the States, Union of India, Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India so that the students, who are intending to sit for the entrance examination, may have knowledge of the same.”

[Underlining is ours] 4

2013 (9) SCALE 226

Page 8

8

8. After the aforesaid order came to be passed the

NEET examination was conducted for the medical as well

as dental courses. On 13.5.2013 this Court referred to the

challenge to the notifications, order passed on 13.12.2012

and thereafter passed the following order: -

“3. On 13th December, 2012, when the matters were taken up for consideration, we decided to post the matters for final hearing on 15th, 16th and 17th January, 2013, and allowed the respective entrance examinations, which had already been notified, to be held, while the hearing progressed. Such examinations included the National Eligibility Entrance Test(NEET) for both MBBS and PostGraduate courses in different disciplines, as also the BDS and MDS examinations. Presuming that the hearing would be completed on the dates indicated, we had directed that the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India, as well as the States and Universities and other institutions, would be entitled to conduct their respective examinations for the MBBS, BDS and Post-Graduate courses, but the results of the examinations were not to be declared until further orders of the Court. Consequently, although, the examinations have been held, the results have been withheld and have not been declared, on account of the interim order passed by us.

4. The hearing could not be concluded within 17th January, 2013, as we had hoped, on account of the enlargement of the scope of the hearing and the large number of parties who had to be heard in the matter. In fact, the matters were last heard on 30th April, 2013, and it has, therefore, not been

Page 9

9

possible to pronounce judgment before the Supreme Court closed for the summer vacations on 10th May, 2013.

5. While the matters were being heard, we had been informed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and the Karnataka Pvt. Medical & Dental College, that a large number of students would be adversely affected and would stand to lose a year, if the bar on the declaration of their results was not lifted. Although, initially, we had declined to entertain such prayer, on account of the delay in completion of the hearing and the prospect of the students losing a year on account thereof, we feel that students hoping to gain admission in the MBBS as well as Post-Graduate courses on the strength of the results of the examinations, which have already been held and for which they had appeared, should not be denied such opportunity, at least for this year. We are also alive to the fact that it is the Post-Graduate students in the medical colleges, who take charge of the medical treatment of patients in the hospitals. Without fresh entrants into the Post-Graduate courses, even for a year, the hospitals are likely to be adversely affected on account of lack of doctors to directly take care of the patients in the hospitals.

6. Apart from the above, the students, who aspire to gain entry into the medical colleges at the MBBS and BDS and the Post-Graduate levels, have been caught in the legal tangle for no fault of theirs and are the victims of policy decisions. In order to safeguard their interests, as also the interest of the hospitals, we consider it just and equitable to lift the bar imposed by us on 13th December, 2012, for this year's entrance examinations and, to that extent, we modify our order of 13th December, 2012, and allow the

Page 10

10

results of the examinations already conducted to be declared to enable the students to take advantage of the same for the current year.”

[Emphasis supplied] 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the results of NEET

were declared on 16.5.2013. The writ petitioners herein

secured ranks which entitled them to be admitted to the

post graduate courses in various streams in the State of

Goa.

10. When the matter was sub-judice before this Court

and this Court has been passing interim orders regard

being had to the numerous fact situations, the High Court

of Bombay at Goa entertained Writ Petition No. 366 of

2013 by the students, who had failed to qualify in the

NEET examination but were eligible to get admission on

the basis of their aggregate marks as provided under the

Rules, and passed the following interim order: -

“Mr. Nadkarni submits that the applications for admission to postgraduate courses in Goa Medical College have been invited from the students, who fall in the category of M.B.B.S. examination from Goa Medical College as well as those who have passed National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (‘NEET’ for short) and counselling and admission

Page 11

11

process are presently being undertaken in terms of MCI Rules on the basis of the result of the NEET.

Considering the equities in the matter, we direct the respondents to hold counselling in respect of both the categories of students and permit admission to the students, who have passed NEET subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court, depending upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the matter pending before it. The selected candidates shall be put on notice that the admissions are provisional in nature and shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court.”

11. It is condign to note here that on the basis of the

ranks in NEET examination and the counselling the writ

petitioners were admitted in the Government Medical

College at Goa.

12. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the

problem to some extent has been created by the interim

order passed by the High Court. With all respect at our

command, we may state that when the matter was before

this Court and interim orders were being passed from time

to time, the High Court should have been well advised not

to entertain the petition and pass any interim order. Such

a restraint was requisite and, more so, when number of

Page 12

12

writ petitions had been transferred to this Court and the

Court was dealing with a batch of 115 matters.

13. The writ petitions filed before this Court and the

transferred cases were decided on 18.7.2013 whereby the

majority came to hold that the Medical Council of India is

not empowered under the Medical Council of India Act,

1956 to conduct the NEET. After so holding the majority

directed as follows: -

“163. The Transferred Cases and the Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed and the impugned Notifications Nos. MCI-31(1)/2010-MED/49068, and MCI.18(1)/2010-MED/49070, both dated 21st December, 2010, published by the Medical Council of India along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated 31st May, 2012, published by the Dental Council of India and the amended Regulations sought to be implemented thereunder along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated 31st May, 2012, published by the Dental Council of India, are hereby quashed. This will not, however, invalidate actions so far as taken under the amended Regulations, including the admissions already given on the basis of the NEET conducted by the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India and other private medical institutions, and the same shall be valid for all purposes.”

[Emphasis added]

Page 13

13

14. After the judgment was pronounced, some kind of

infantile wisdom which may, in different terminology, be

called depraved sense of egocentric knowledge, the

Additional Secretary (Health) had conveyed the

Government’s decision dated 25.7.2013 which is as

under: -

“The Dean Goa Medical College, Bambolim-Goa

Sub: Decision of the Government regarding Admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Cources at GMC.

I am directed to refer to your letter No. Acad/175/G.M.C./2013/441 dt. 23.7.2013 on the subject cited above and to convey the decision of the Government to admit the students for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma based on aggregate MBBS marks, as per existing rules as notified in the Official Gazette Series I No. 50 and Series I No. 51, Notification No. I/B/2033-II/PHD.

Provisional admissions given on the basis of the NEET merit earlier thus stands cancelled.”

[Underlining is ours] 15. This wise act of the State Government can

irrefragably be compared with “absence of common sense

in an uncommon degree”.

Page 14

14

16. When the writ petitions came before the High

Court on 25.7.2013, it passed the following order: -

“Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 states that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 18/07/2013 in T.C. (C) No. 98 of 2012 and allied matters, the State Government has decided to follow its decision dated 15/06/2013 and grant admissions in terms of the State Regulations.

In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel seeks leave to withdraw the petition, which is objected to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. Before granting leave to withdraw the petition, we deem it appropriate to hear the respondents.

We also direct the State Government to place on record the decision taken by it to go by the said regulations by filing an Affidavit of a responsible officer. The Affidavit to be filed by 29/07/2013 with advance copies to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.”

17. After the aforesaid event, chaos ruled. The

candidates, who had qualified in the NEET examination

and had been admitted, were compelled to leave the

college and the students who had qualified under the

Rules were admitted. The dissatisfaction impelled the

Page 15

15

grieved students to approach this Court under Article 32

of the Constitution and the Court on 30.7.2013 stayed the

order of the State Government and thereafter on 7.8.2013

passed a mandatory order to the effect that the

petitioners shall be permitted to continue their studies.

18. The thrust of the matter is whether the petitioners

have any right to continue or the respondents who have

been admitted under the Rules have the right of

admission.

19. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioners, would urge with immense vehemence

that the State of Goa had consciously accepted the NEET

examination for the purpose of admission to post

graduate courses and, hence, it cannot be permitted to

take a somersault. That apart, submits the learned senior

counsel, in view of the protection granted by this Court in

its final judgment, which protects their admissions, their

rights could not have been demolished in such an

irrational manner.

Page 16

16

20. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

State of Goa, would submit that NEET having been

declared ultra vires, the acceptance or non-acceptance by

the State Government has to pale into insignificance. He

would further submit that the State Government, keeping

the High Court order in view wherein it was mentioned

that admission should be provisional, had issued the order

of cancellation of the admissions given to the successful

NEET candidates.

21. We have already reproduced paragraph 163 of the

judgment pronounced by this Court in Christian Medical

College, Vellore (supra) on 18.7.2013. The majority has

unequivocally stated that the quashment of the

notifications shall not invalidate the action already taken

under the amended regulations including the admissions

already given on the basis of NEET conducted by the

Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India.

There is no cavil over the fact that the petitioners had

qualified and taken admissions. The High Court by its

order dated 20.6.2013 directed to hold counselling in

Page 17

17

respect of both the categories of students and permit

admissions to the students who have passed NEET subject

to further orders that may be passed by it depending upon

the order passed by the Apex Court in the matter pending

before it. As per the direction of the High Court the

selected candidates are to be put on notice that the

admissions are provisional in nature and shall be subject

to further orders that may be passed by the High Court.

The High Court should not have entertained the writ

petition on three counts, namely, (i) all the writ petitions

challenging the notification from all the High Courts had

been transferred to this Court; (ii) that the Court had been

passing interim orders from time to time; and (iii) that any

order passed by it had the potentiality to usher in some

kind of anomaly. What the High Court would have done

while finally adjudicating the matter is another issue but

on the basis of the decision taken by the State

Government on 25.7.2013, possibly the learned Advocate

General made a statement before the Court on 25.7.2013.

Page 18

18

22. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel, would submit

that all admissions being provisional, as stated by the

High Court, the State Government after interpreting the

orders thought it apposite that the admissions given on

the base of ranks in NEET should be cancelled and the

admissions given under the Rules should be sustained.

We have already stated how the Government has taken

the decision. Though we have stated that the High Court

should not have entertained and passed any order, yet we

are obliged to state that the order of the High Court is also

quite clear to the effect that interim order was subject to

further orders that may be passed by it depending upon

the order passed by this Court. Thus, the order passed by

the High Court was a guarded one. This Court in the final

judgment had not invalidated the actions taken under the

amended regulations and it included the admissions

already given on the basis of the NEET conducted by the

Medical Council of India. Therefore, there could not have

been any scintilla of doubt in any one’s mind that the

admissions given on the basis of NEET examination had

Page 19

19

been protected by this Court and hence, their admissions

could not have been cancelled by the State Government.

23. It is really perplexing that the State Government in

spite of the order of this Court took a decision on

25.7.2013 to cancel the provisional admissions given to

the students on the basis of NEET merit examination. The

act indubitably shows total lack of prudence. The

authorities in the Government are required to understand

that the basic governance consists in the act of taking

considered, well vigilant, appropriate and legal decisions.

It is the sacrosanct duty of the Government to follow the

law and the pronouncements of the court and not to take

recourse to such subterfuges. The Government should

have reminded itself the saying of Benjamin Disraeli:

“I repeat – that all power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and all must exist.”

24. It may not be out of place to state here that every

public authority has a duty coupled with power. Before

exercising the power one is required to understand the

object of such power and the conditions in which the same

Page 20

20

is to be exercised. Similarly, when one performs public

duty he has to remain alive to the legal position and not

be oblivious of it. In this context, we may refer to the

authority in Superintending Engineer, Public Health,

U.T. Chandigarh and others v. Kuldeep Singh and

others5 wherein the Court has reproduced the

observations of Farl Cairns L.C. in the House of Lords in

Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford6 which was quoted with

approval by this Court in Commissioner of Police,

Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji7. The succinctly stated

passage reads thus: -

“There may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the

5

(1997) 9 SCC 199

6

(1880) 5 A.C. 214

7

AIR 1952 SC 16

Page 21

21

duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so.”

But, unfortunately, here the authorities of the State

Government have felt courageous enough to play possum

and proceeded to crucify the fate of the candidates who had

been protected by the verdict of this Court. Such an action

is absolutely impermissible. Thus analysed the letter dated

25.7.2013 deserves to be lancinated and we so do. The writ

petitioners, who have been admitted on the basis of the

NEET examination, shall be allowed to prosecute their

studies.

25. The agony and woe do not end here. The anguish

of the students who were admitted on the basis of the

Rules, in our considered opinion, deserves to be

addressed. True it is, they instead of approaching this

Court knocked at the doors of the High Court, may be in

anxiety, as the counselling for the candidates qualified in

the NEET examination had commenced. By virtue of the

order of the High Court they got provisional admissions.

They have prosecuted their studies for some time. Had

Page 22

22

the NEET not been introduced, they would have been

admitted under the Rules. But, presently the situation is

totally different. With the intention to solve the problem

we had directed issue of notice to the Medical Council of

India. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

Medical Council of India, has invited our attention to the

pronouncements of this Court in K.S. Bhoir v. State of

Maharashtra and others8, Faiza Choudhary v. State

of Jammu and Kashmir and another9, Satyabrata

Sahoo and others v. State of Orissa and others10 and

Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and

others11. Learned counsel has drawn colossal inspiration

8

(2001) 10 SCC 264

9

(2012) 10 SCC 149

10

(2012) 8 SCC 203

11

(1998) 6 SCC 131

Page 23

23

from the pronouncements in Satyabrata Sahoo and

Faiza Choudhary (supra).

26. In Satyabrata Sahoo, a two-Judge Bench has

stated thus: -

“This Court in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla12 held that the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. Technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment and staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed by the Medical Council of India.

Thereafter, the learned Judges proceeded to state thus:-

“….in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka this Court held that the number of students admitted cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical Council as per the Regulations and that seats in medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the Regulations of the Medical Council.”

12

(1994) 1 SCC 175

Page 24

24

27. In Faiza Choudhary (supra) a two-Judge Bench

has ruled thus: -

“In Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka this Court held that the number of students admitted cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical Council as per the Regulations and that seats in the medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the Regulations of the Medical Council. In Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh13, this Court held that there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year. Recently, this Court in Satyabrata Sahoo v. State of Orissa has reiterated that it would not be possible to increase seats at the expense of candidates waiting for admission in the succeeding years.”

28. From the aforesaid decisions two principles

emerge: (i) that there cannot be direction for increase of

seats and (ii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats

of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent years.

29. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to Priya

Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others14, wherein

13

(2002) 7 SCC 258

14

(2012) 7 SCC 433

Page 25

25

the Court had issued directions under Article 142 of the

Constitution permitting the appellants therein to complete

the course.

30. The factual matrix of the present case, being

totally exceptional, compels us to exercise our jurisdiction

under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue a direction

so that it can act as a palliative at least for some of the

students who had been given admissions under the Rules.

We have been apprised by Mr. Singh, learned senior

counsel for the State and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned

senior counsel for the private respondents, that 21 seats

of All India quota in postgraduate medical course and 7

seats in dental course have been transferred to the State

quota. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the Medical

Council of India, while not disputing the numbers, would

submit that they are to be filled up on different

parameters. We are absolutely conscious of the said

position. However, regard being had to the special

features of the case and the litigations that have cropped

up and the mistake that the State Government has

Page 26

26

committed, we are inclined to direct that 21 seats

transferred to the State quota shall be filled up from

among the students who had taken admissions under the

2004 Rules. It needs no special emphasis to state that the

admissions and the allocations of the stream shall be on

their inter se merit as per the Rules. We may hasten to

clarify that none of these candidates shall be allowed to

encroach upon the streams that have already been

allotted to the petitioners who were admitted having been

qualified in the NEET examination. We have been further

apprised at the Bar that there are some unfilled seats as

some students have left the College. If the vacancies

have occurred, the same can also be filled up regard being

had to the merit as stipulated under the Rules.

31. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note

of two submissions put forth by the learned counsel for

the State as well as by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior

counsel for the private respondents. The first one is to the

effect that there should be increase of the seats for the

academic year 2013-14 and the students should be

Page 27

27

adjusted. Be it noted, an application was filed by the

College for enhancement of seats for 2014-15 and during

the pendency of this petition there has been a request to

the Medical Council of India to prepone it for the year

2013-14. Enhancement of seats requires inspection and is

controlled by a set of Regulations and, in any case, the

application for 2014-15 cannot be directed to be

processed in the current year.

32. The next submission relates to the issue whether

the students who cannot be adjusted in the seats of All

India quota that have been transferred to the State quota

of this year can be adjusted next year. During the course

of hearing though there was some debate with regard to

giving of admissions to such students in the academic

year 2014-15, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the

Medical Council of India, has seriously opposed the same

and, thereafter, has cited the authorities which we have

referred to hereinbefore. We are bound by the said

precedents. In certain individual cases where there is

defective counselling and merit has become a casualty,

Page 28

28

this Court has directed for adjustment in the next

academic session but in the case at hand, it is not exactly

so. Though we are at pains, yet we must express that it

will not be appropriate to issue directions to adjust them

in respect of the subsequent academic year, for taking

recourse to the same would affect the other meritorious

candidates who would be aspirant to get admissions next

year. For doing equity to some in presenti we cannot

afford to do injustice to others in future. Therefore, the

submission stands repelled.

33. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no

order as to costs.

………………..……………J. [Anil R. Dave]

………………..……………J. [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; August 30, 2013.