Priya Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh .

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