REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1015           OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 27551 of 2010]

Deepa Thomas & Ors. … Appellants

versus

Medical Council of India & Ors. … Respondents

with

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   1016-1017    OF 2012 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27950-27951 of 2010)

Anu Rubina Ansar & Ors. Etc. … Appellants

Versus

Medical Council of India & Ors. … Respondents

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1018      OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 28474 of 2010]

Anjana Babu & Ors. … Appellants

versus

Medical Council of India & Ors. … Respondents

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1027      OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 28611 of 2010]

Abhay Babu & Ors. … Appellants

versus

Medical Council of India & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in these Civil  

Appeals is whether this Court should direct the respondents including  

the Medical Council of India (for short ‘MCI’), the University of Calicut  

and  the  Mahatma  Gandhi  University,  Kottayam  to  permit  the  

appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they  

were  admitted in  the  different  Private  Unaided Medical  Colleges  in  

Kerala in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not eligible for  

such admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had satisfied  

all  the  eligibility  criteria  stipulated  in  the  “Prospectus  for  MBBS  

Admission,  2007”  issued  by  the  respondent-Medical  Colleges.  The  

appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake or omission crept in  

the Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria for admission. When  

the MCI Regulations insist on a minimum of 50% marks both in the  

qualifying examination and in the Competitive Entrance Examination  

(for  short  ‘CEE’)  separately,  the  Prospectus  did  not  specify  that  

separate  50%  marks  were  required  in  the  CEE  also.  Though  the  

appellants  had  secured  more  than  50%  marks  in  the  qualifying  

examination, they could secure only less than 50% marks in the CEE.  

Without noticing and without being aware of the difference between  

the MCI Regulations and the Prospectus in respect of the eligibility  

criteria,  the  appellants  took  admission  in  the  medical  colleges.  

Immediately after the admission the colleges sent the list of admitted  

students and their marks to the MCI.  There was no objection from  

the MCI and the appellants continued their studies.   However, several  

2

months thereafter, MCI directed the colleges concerned to discharge  

the appellants on the ground that they were not eligible for admission  

as they had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE.  Though  

the appellants and the colleges represented to the MCI and requested  

to  reconsider  its  decision,  the  MCI  refused  to  change  its  stand.  

Hence, the appellants were constrained to approach the High Court of  

Kerala  for  redressal  of  their  grievance  and on the  basis  of  interim  

orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by them,  

the  appellants  continued  their  studies  and  appeared  in  the  

examinations conducted by the University. However, the writ petitions  

filed by the appellants were ultimately dismissed by the High Court on  

16th September,  2010.  Faced with the threat of  discharge from the  

colleges, the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave.  On  

the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court, the appellants  

continued their studies and appeared in the examinations and they  

are now in the fourth year of the MBBS course. The appellants claim  

that they are innocent victims of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake  

or omission crept in the Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria  

for admission. They contend that even if there was some discrepancy  

between the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus and the  

eligibility criteria mentioned in the MCI Regulations, they were not in  

any  way  responsible  for  such  discrepancy  and  they  may  not  be  

penalised for no fault  of theirs. The appellants seek intervention of  

this Court to save their career and future.

3

3. The appellants are students of Jubilee Medical Mission College  

and  Research  Institute,  Thrissur,  M.E.S.  Medical  College,  

Perinthalmanna, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College,  

Kolenchery and Pushapagiri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research  

Centre, Thiruvalla. Admittedly all these medical colleges are members  

of  the  Kerala  Private  Medical  College  Management  Association  (for  

short, `Management Association’) and the Prospectus for admission to  

MBBS  course,  2007  issued  by  the  Management  Association  was  

followed by these medical colleges except the M.E.S. Medical College.  

The prospectus issued by the M.E.S. Medical College also contained  

identical provisions relating to eligibility criteria for admission.

4. As per Clause 1.1 of the Prospectus, it was made clear that the  

Management  Association  had  decided  to  introduce  a  separate  

selection procedure for admission to MBBS course, 2007-2008 in the  

member colleges of the Management Association as per the directions  

of the Supreme Court in the matter.  

As  per  Clause  2.2(i),  the  academic  qualification  required  for  

admission was “Pass in Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of  

Higher  Secondary  Education  of  Kerala  or  examination  recognised  

equivalent  thereto  with  60% marks in  Biology  separately  and 60%  

marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology put together or equivalent  

grade”.  

Clause 4.1 of the Prospectus provided as follows:  

4

“Preparation  of  Merit  List  and  Allotment  of   Candidates: Admission  will  be  on  the  basis  of  marks  obtained  in  the  entrance  examination  and  marks  obtained  for  Physics,  Chemistry  and  Biology  in  the  qualifying examination. The marks will be apportioned in  the  ratio  of  50:50.  After  the  entrance  test,  the  marks  obtained for  the Physics,  Chemistry and Biology at the  qualifying  examination  will  be  added  to  the  marks  obtained at the entrance test and a combined merit list  will  be  published.  Separate  merit  list  also  will  be  published  for  categories  for  which  seats  are  reserved.  Allotment to colleges and admission will be on the basis  of centralized counselling.”

As per the above provisions in the Prospectus, even though a candidate  

was required to pass the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of  

Higher  Secondary  Education  of  Kerala  or  examination  recognised  

equivalent  thereto  with  60%  marks  in  Biology  separately  and  60%  

marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology put together, there was no  

requirement of any minimum marks in the entrance examination.  

5. It cannot be disputed that admissions to MBBS Course in the  

respondent-Medical Colleges are governed by the MCI Regulations on  

Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short ‘MCI Regulations’).

6. According  to  Regulation  4(2)  of  the  MCI  Regulations,  no  

candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS course until  

he/she  has  passed  one  of  the  qualifying  examinations  mentioned  

therein. According to Regulation 5(2) of the MCI Regulations, in States  

having more than one University/Board/Examination Body conducting  

the qualifying examination or where there is more than one medical  

5

college under the administrative control of one authority, a competitive  

entrance  examination  should  be  held  so  as  to  achieve  a  uniform  

evaluation  as  there  may  be  variation  of  standards  of  qualifying  

examinations conducted by the different agencies.  

Clause 5(ii) of Regulation 5 reads as follows:  

“5.  Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall  be as follows:

(i)   xxx xxxx xxx

(ii) In  case  of  admission  on  the  basis  of  competitive entrance examination under clause (2) to  (4) of this regulation, a candidate must have passed  in  the  subjects  of  Physics,  Chemistry,  Biology and  English  individually  and  must  have  obtained  a  minimum of 50% of marks taken together in Physics  Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination  as  mentioned  in  clause  (2)  of  regulation  4  and in  addition must have come in the merit list prepared  as a result of such competitive entrance examination  by  securing  not  less  then  50% marks  in  Physics,  Chemistry  and  Biology  taken  together  competitive  examination.  In respect  of  candidates  belonging  to  Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes or other Backward  Classes  the  marks  obtained  in  Physics,  Chemistry  and Biology taken together in qualifying examination  and  competitive  entrance  examination  be  40%  instead of 50% as stated above:

Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the  qualifying examination the  result  of  which has not  been  declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the  competitive entrance examination and in case of selection  for  admission  to  the  MBBS  course,  he  shall  not  be  admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria  under regulation 4.”

Thus, as per the MCI Regulations, in the case of admission on the basis  

of competitive entrance examination, a candidate must have obtained a  

minimum  of  50%  marks  taken  together  in  Physics,  Chemistry  and  

6

Biology  at  the  qualifying  examination  and  in  addition,  must  have  

secured not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology  

taken  together  in  the  competitive  examination.   However  such  a  

requirement of minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology  

taken together in the competitive examination was not mentioned in the  

Prospectus issued by the colleges.  

7. Admittedly the appellants were eligible for admission as per the  

criteria  laid  down  in  the  Prospectus,  but  they  were  not  eligible  for  

admission as per the criteria laid down in the MCI Regulations, as they  

secured only less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology  

taken together in the competitive examination.  

8. In the impugned judgment,  the  High Court  has  held  that  the  

regulations  framed by  the  MCI  are  mandatory  in  nature.   For  this  

purpose, the High Court relied on the judgment dated 14 th July, 2008  

of  the High Court of  Madhya Pradesh in Writ  Petition No. 13379 of  

2007 and connected cases.  In the said judgment, the High Court of  

Madhya  Pradesh  held  that  the  Regulations  framed  by  the  MCI  are  

mandatory in nature.  In the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed in  

Civil Appeal Nos. 5518-5519 of 2008 (Monika Ranka & Ors. v Medical  

Council of India & Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos.5520-5521 of 2008, this  

Court  upheld the  principle  laid down by the  High Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh,  though the  appellants  therein  were  granted  personal  relief  

treating it  as a special  case.   Learned counsel  for  the appellants in  

7

these appeals did not seriously contest the proposition that the MCI  

regulations  are  mandatory  in  nature.   They  only  pleaded  that  the  

indulgence shown to the students by this Court in the above-mentioned  

Monika Ranka’s case may be extended to the appellants, as their case  

is  better  than  the  case  of  the  students  in  Monika  Ranka’s  case.  

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  also  did  not  dispute  that  the  

appellants  had  secured  only  less  than  50%  marks  in  the  CEE.  

Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the admission of the  

appellants  was  irregular  and the  MCI  was justified  in  directing  the  

colleges to discharge the appellants.

9. Therefore, the only question to be considered in these appeals is  

whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases,  

the appellants should be allowed to continue and complete the MBBS  

course as was done by this Court in Monika Ranka’s case.  We may  

now refer to some of the aspects which are relevant for answering the  

above question.

10. The  appellants  had  applied  for  admission  in  response  to  the  

Prospectus for admission to MBBS 2007 issued by the colleges.  It was  

not  disputed  that  the  Prospectus  was  approved  by  the  Admission  

Supervisory Committee constituted by the Government of Kerala under  

the  Kerala  Professional  Colleges  or  Institutions  (Prohibition  of  

Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non exploitative  

Fee  and  Other  Measures  to  Ensure  Equity  and  Excellence  in  

8

Professional Education) Act 19 of 2006.  The CEE was conducted and  

the  merit  list  was  prepared  under  the  supervision  of  the  said  

Committee.  

11. However, there was a minor discrepancy between the eligibility  

criteria  for  admission  prescribed  by  the  MCI  Regulations  and  the  

eligibility  criteria  mentioned in  the  Prospectus.   The  requirement  of  

securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE was not mentioned in the  

Prospectus.  According to the appellants and the colleges, it was only  

an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission while preparing the  

Prospectus.   It  was  contended  that  Regulation  5(5)(ii)  is  clumsily  

worded, with the words “taken together” appearing in several places  

giving an impression that minimum 50% is required when the marks of  

qualifying examination and the marks of the CEE are taken together.  It  

was also contended that such an omission or mistake occurred due to  

lack of sufficient clarity in Regulation 5(5)(ii).  There is some substance  

in the contention.

12. It was pointed out that, when the MCI Regulations require only  

minimum 50% marks in  the  qualifying  examination,  the  Prospectus  

issued by the Management Association stipulated a higher standard of  

minimum 60% marks in the qualifying examination and the appellants  

did  satisfy  the  said  requirement  by  securing  60%  to  99%  in  the  

qualifying examination.  Hence, it cannot be said that the appellants  

were  not  meritorious  candidates,  though  unfortunately  they  could  

9

secure only less than 50% marks in the CEE.  The Prospectus however  

did not mention the requirement of minimum 50% marks in the CEE  

separately.   The  Prospectus  was  submitted  to  the  Admission  

Supervisory  Committee  constituted  under  Act  19  of  2006  but  the  

Committee  did  not  raise  any  objection  to  the  eligibility  criteria  

mentioned  in  the  Prospectus.   Possibly,  the  Admission  Supervisory  

Committee also failed to notice the omission.   

13. It  was  specifically  averred  by  the  appellants  that  the  marks  

obtained in the CEE were not  communicated to the candidates and  

consequently the appellants were not aware that they had secured only  

less than 50% marks in the CEE.   Hence it cannot be said that the  

appellants  took  admission  knowing  that  they  were  not  eligible  for  

admission.   The  CEE  was  conducted  under  the  supervision  of  the  

Admission Supervisory Committee which scrutinized and approved the  

merit  list.   It  was  also  averred  that  though  the  list  of  selected  

candidates was submitted by the colleges to the Admission Supervisory  

Committee, no objection was raised by the Committee to the admission  

of  the  appellants  for  a  very  long  time.   In  this  context,  it  may  be  

remembered that Section 4(6) of Act 19 of 2006 provides as hereunder:

“The Admission  Supervisory  Committee  shall  supervise  and   

guide  the  entire  process  of  admission  of  students  to  the   

unaided  professional  colleges  or  institutions  with  a  view  to   

ensure that the process is fair,  transparent,  merit  based and   

non exploitative under the provisions of the Act”.  

1

In such circumstances, the appellants had no reason to suspect that  

they were ineligible for admission.  The list of admitted candidates,  

along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination  

and the CEE, was submitted by the colleges to the MCI immediately  

after the admissions.  It was from the list of admitted candidates and  

their marks that the MCI found that the appellants had secured only  

less than 50% marks in the CEE.  Possibly, in view of the delay in  

conducting  the  scrutiny,  the  above  irregularity  was brought  to  the  

notice of the colleges by the MCI long after they were admitted to the  

course.  Having realised the mistake or omission in the Prospectus for  

the  year  2007,  the  colleges  rectified  the  mistake/omission  in  the  

prospectus for the subsequent years.

14. The  appellants  have  secured  60%  to  99%  marks  in  the  

qualifying examination as against the 50% required under the MCI  

Regulations.  They have also secured more than 50% of the aggregate  

marks, if the marks of the qualifying examination and the CEE are  

taken together.   

15. The High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment that the  

appellants in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 13810, 13817, 13818, 13819 and  

21534 of 2010 contended that though they had not obtained 50% in  

the  CEE,  they  had  obtained  more  than  50%  marks  in  other  

Competitive Entrance Examinations like the Entrance Test conducted  

1

by  Christian  Medical  College,  Ludhiana,  the  Karnataka  Common  

Entrance Examination for Private Colleges and the Common Entrance  

Examination  conducted  by  the  Commissioner  for  Entrance  

Examinations, Government of Kerala.  Some of the appellants claimed  

that in view of their admission in the respondent-Colleges, they gave  

up admissions offered to them in medical colleges outside Kerala.   

16. Long  before  the  MCI  directed  the  colleges  to  discharge  the  

appellants,  admissions  for  the  academic  year  2007-2008 had been  

closed everywhere.   

17. The  respondent  -  Colleges  or  the  MCI  had  not  received  any  

complaint  against  the  admission  of  the  appellants  from any  other  

candidate who sought admission to MBBS.   

18. Realising  that  the  admissions  given  to  the  appellants  were  

irregular and that such irregularity occurred due to the inadvertent  

omission to include in the Prospectus the requirement of minimum  

50% marks in the CEE, the respondent-Colleges except the M.E.S.  

College,  through  their  counsel  offered  before  the  High  Court  to  

surrender equal number of seats from the management quota to the  

Government quota in the next year.  Though the offer has been noted  

by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, it was  

not  accepted  by  the  High  Court.   Learned  counsel  for  all  the  

respondent – Colleges including the M.E.S. College stated before this  

1

Court  that  the  said  Colleges  are  willing  to  surrender  from  the  

management quota number of seats equal to the number of students  

sought  to  be  discharged.  However,  learned  counsel  for  the  M.E.S.  

College further submitted that considering that the number of seats to  

be so surrendered by them is 27, the said college may be permitted to  

surrender them over a reasonable period.    

19. The learned counsel for respondent-Colleges also submitted that  

the MCI has not been implementing the Regulations uniformly.  For  

example, admissions to MBBS course in the State of Tamilnadu are  

allowed to be made without any entrance test and only based on the  

marks in the qualifying examination.  This was not disputed by the  

learned counsel for the MCI.  It was also alleged that in State of Kerala  

itself the MCI had regularized the irregular admissions in other Private  

Medical  Colleges  like  the  Gokulam  Medical  College,  but  the  

correctness  of  the  allegation  could  not  be  verified  by  the  learned  

counsel for MCI for want of time.   

20. On the strength of the interim orders passed by the High Court  

and subsequently by this Court, the appellants have continued their  

studies  for  4½  years  and  have  appeared  in  the  University  

examinations.

21. In  the  light  of  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  stated  

above,  we  are  of  the  view  that  it  is  quite  unjust  and  unfair  to  

1

discharge the appellants at this stage.  This is an eminently fit case  

for invoking this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution  

of India to permit the appellants to continue and complete the MBBS  

course to which they were admitted in the year 2007.  Such an order  

is necessary for doing complete justice in the matter.  In taking such a  

view,  we  are  supported  by  the  precedent  in  the  order  dated  4th  

September, 2008 passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Civil  

Appeal  Nos.  5518-5519 of  2008 (Monika  Ranka & Ors.  v.  Medical  

Council of India & Ors.).  In that case though the admission was held  

to  be irregular,  this  Court  showed indulgence to  the students and  

permitted them to continue and complete the course on the ground  

that  there  was  nothing  on  record  to  show that  the  students  were  

informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination  

and  the  students  had  already  completed  one  year  of  their  MBBS  

course.  In fact, the facts and circumstances pointed out in the earlier  

paragraphs show that the case of the appellants is much better than  

the case of the students in Monika Ranka’s case.    In Monika Ranka’s  

case, there was no confusion regarding the eligibility criteria whereas  

in this  case  the  Prospectus omitted to mention the  requirement of  

securing minimum 50% marks for the CEE as provided in the MCI  

Regulations.  The appellants in Monika Ranka’s case had completed  

only one year of their course, whereas in this case the appellants are  

completing the 4th year of the MBBS course.  As in Monika Ranka’s  

case,  the  appellants  herein  also  were  not  informed  of  the  marks  

secured by them in the entrance examination.  Though the appellants  

1

had specifically  pleaded so  in  the  writ  petitions  and also  in  these  

appeals, there is nothing on record to show that the marks secured by  

them in the entrance examination were communicated to them.  The  

High Court has noted in the impugned judgment that since there was  

nothing on record to show that the appellants in Monika Ranka’s case  

were  informed  of  the  marks  secured  by  them  in  the  entrance  

examination, the Apex Court indulged to give them the personal relief  

of permitting them to continue with the course.  Even though the case  

of the appellants herein also is similar, the High Court has not given  

any reason for not extending the same relief to the appellants.  There  

is also no finding anywhere in the judgment that the marks of the  

CEE were communicated to the appellants.

22. We  also  notice  that  an  almost  identical  situation  arose  in  

Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and  

Others [(2011) 3 SCC 617].  In that case, the conflict was between the  

provisions in the MCI Regulations and the provisions in the Gujarat  

Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation  

of  Admission  and  Payment  of  Fees)  Rules,  2008  (for  short,  “State  

Rules”).  Under  the  MCI  Regulations,  the  candidates  belonging  to  

Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and  Other  Backward  Classes  

were required to secure in the common entrance test a minimum of  

40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, but in  

the State Rules there was no such requirement.  Thus, the State Rules  

had prescribed a qualification standard which was less than that of  

1

the  MCI.   The  appellants  before  this  Court  belonged to  Scheduled  

Castes,  Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and though  

they did not  secure 40% marks in Physics,  Chemistry and Biology  

taken together, they were given admission to the MBBS course.  The  

High Court  of  Gujarat  had struck down the provision in the State  

Rules which provided that a candidate who appeared in the common  

entrance test was eligible  for admission to the MBBS course even if  

he obtained less than 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology  

taken  together  in  the  common  entrance  test  and  also  upheld  the  

directions  given  by  the  MCI  to  discharge  the  appellants  from  the  

college.   This Court upheld the decision of the High Court observing  

that the qualification requirements prescribed by the State cannot be  

lower than those prescribed by the MCI.  However, this Court also  

found that the admissions of the appellant-students took place due to  

the fault of the rule-making authority in not making the State Rules in  

conformity with the MCI Regulations and that if  the appellants are  

discharged from the MBBS course for  the fault  of  the rule-making  

authority, they will suffer grave injustice.  This Court further found  

that  the  appellants  were  not  to  be  blamed  for  having  secured  

admission in the MBBS course and that the fault was entirely on the  

rule-making authority in making the State Rules.  Even though the  

appellants were not eligible for admission under the MCI Regulations,  

considering  that  the  appellants  had  gone  through  the  pains  of  

appearing in the common entrance test and had been selected on the  

basis of their merit and admitted into the MBBS course in accordance  

1

with the State Rules and had pursued their studies for a year, this  

Court,  for  the  purpose  of  doing  complete  justice  in  the  matter,  

directed  that  the  admissions  of  the  appellants  should  not  be  

disturbed.  Though this Court observed that the said direction was not  

to be treated as a precedent, we find sufficient justification for giving a  

similar direction in the case of the appellants before us.   

23. In  Supreme Court  Bar Association v.  Union of India and  

Another [(1998) 4 SCC 409] (in para 48), a Constitution Bench of this  

Court held:

“The Supreme Court  in exercise of  its jurisdiction under  

Article  142  has  the  power  to  make  such  order  as  is  

necessary for doing complete justice “between the parties in  

any cause or matter pending before it”.  The very nature of  

the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within  

which to exercise those powers and  ordinarily it  cannot  disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except  

perhaps  to  balance  the  equities  between  the  conflicting  

claims of the litigating parties by “ironing out the creases”  

in a cause or matter before it.  Indeed this Court is not a  

court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling. ”

Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case and  

the extra-ordinary situation arising in the case, we do not in any way  

feel  inhibited  to  invoke  our  jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the matter before  

us.

1

24. For the reasons stated above, we although agree with the view of  

the MCI and the High Court that the admissions of  the appellants  

were irregular as they did not satisfy the requirement of securing not  

less  than  50%  marks  in  the  CEE  as  prescribed  in  the  MCI  

Regulations, we are inclined to take a considerate view in the special  

facts  and  circumstances  mentioned  in  the  earlier  paragraphs  and  

hence we direct that, as a special case, the appellants shall be allowed  

to continue and complete their MBBS course and also permit them to  

appear in the University examinations as if they had been regularly  

admitted to the course.  

25. Since  irregular  admissions  were  made  by  the  respondent  

-Colleges  in  violation  of  the  MCI  Regulations,  though  due  to  the  

mistake  or  omission  in  the  Prospectus  issued  by  the  respondent  

colleges, they should be directed to surrender from the management  

quota,  number  of  seats  equal  to  the  number  of  such  irregular  

admissions.   Such surrenders  shall  be  made in  a  phased manner  

starting with the admissions of the year 2012.  However, any of the  

respondent-Colleges  shall  not  be  required  to  surrender  more  than  

eight (8) seats in one academic year.   

26. Learned  counsel  for  the  MCI  strongly  pleaded  that  as  a  

deterrent  against  irregular  admissions  in  future  a  penalty  or  fine  

should  be  imposed  on  the  respondent-Colleges  and  for  the  said  

1

purpose he suggested that the respondent-Colleges may be directed to  

deposit  with the Legal Services Authority the entire amount of fees  

collected by the colleges from the appellant–students.  Having regard  

to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find sufficient  

justification  for  such  a  harsh  treatment,  as  in  our  view,  the  

irregularity  in  the  admissions  occurred  due  to  an inadvertent  and  

bona fide mistake or omission on the part of the Colleges while issuing  

the Prospectus. Since the mistake or omission occurred even before  

the  applications  were  invited,  it  is  not  possible  to  attribute  any  

malafides on the part of the respondent-Colleges as it does not appear  

to be a deliberate act to violate the MCI Regulations and since the  

irregular admissions have not resulted in any pecuniary gain for the  

management.  Even if the appellants were not admitted, the Colleges  

could  have  admitted  equal  number  of  other  candidates  from  the  

management  quota  and  collected  from  them  the  very  same  fees  

applicable to management quota students.  There was also no attempt  

to favour the appellants, as the Colleges could not have anticipated  

that the appellants would apply and fail to secure 50% marks in the  

CEE.  Moreover the respondent-Colleges inspite of bonafide lapse are  

adequately  punished as we have  directed them to surrender  equal  

number of seats from the management quota in the coming years.  As  

a result of such surrender of management quota seats, there will be  

considerable reduction in the income of the Colleges from the fees of  

the students, because, the fees to be paid by a student admitted in the  

management quota are admittedly much higher than the fees to be  

1

paid by the student admitted in the Government quota.  Hence in the  

facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to accept  

the suggestion of the learned counsel for the MCI to impose a penalty  

on the Colleges.

27. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.  There will be  

no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

…………………………………J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi; January 25, 2012.

2