Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     8142     OF     2011   

Rajan Purohit & Ors.                                      …     Appellants

Versus

Rajasthan University of Health Science  & Ors.                                                             … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.8143     OF     2011,      CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.8144     OF     2011,      

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.      6210        OF     2012      (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24967 of 2011)  

AND  CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.      6211      OF     2012   

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25353 of 2011)  

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

A.     K.     PATNAIK,     J.   

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     8142     OF     2011,     CIVIL     APPEAL    NO.8143     OF     2011     AND     CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.8144     OF     2011:      

These are appeals by way of special leave under Article  

136 of the Constitution of India against the common order  

and judgment dated 03.09.2009 of the Division Bench of the

Page 2

2

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in Special Appeal  

Nos.241 of 2009 and 386 of 2009.

FACTS

2. The facts very briefly are that the Secretary, Medical  

Education, Government of Rajasthan, held a meeting on  

04.12.2007 for the purpose of conducting a common  

entrance test for admission to the Medical and Dental  

Colleges in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year  

2008-2009.  Besides the Secretary, Medical Education,  

Government of Rajasthan, the Registrar, Rajasthan Medical  

University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, Professor Anatomy of  

Medical College, Jaipur, Special Officer, Technical  

Education Department, Government of Rajasthan,  

representative from the Federation of Private Medical and  

Dental Colleges of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Managing Director,  

Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur, Managing Director,  

National Institute of Medical Sciences, Jaipur, were also  

present in the meeting. Geetanjali Medical College and  

Hospital (for short ‘the College’) was yet to receive its  

permission from the Government of India and affiliation  

from the Rajasthan University of Medical Sciences and on

Page 3

3

12.12.2007, the Chairman and Managing Trustee of the  

Geetanjali Foundation Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal gave a  

written undertaking that the College will admit the students  

to the MBBS course only after getting permission from the  

Government of India and after getting affiliation from the  

Rajasthan University of Medical Sciences.  Another meeting  

for the aforesaid purpose was held under the Chairmanship  

of the Secretary, Medical Education on 15.12.2007 and at  

this meeting it was decided that students will be made  

available for 85% of the seats in the medical colleges in the  

State of Rajasthan through the Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test  

2008 (for short the ‘RPMT-2008), and the remaining 15%  

seats of the colleges will constitute NRI quota which will be  

filled by the colleges.   The representative of the College did  

not participate in the meeting on the ground that inspection  

of the College by the Medical Council of India (for short  

‘MCI’) was going on.  The Director of the College in his letter  

dated 18.12.2007 to the Secretary, Medical Education,  

Government of Rajasthan, while expressing his inability to  

attend the meeting on 15.12.2007, explained that the  

College cannot participate in the admission procedure and

Page 4

4

cannot give consent for taking the students from the RPMT-

2008 till the College received the clearances from the MCI.  

Thereafter, the inspection report in respect of the College  

was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI on  

12.05.2008 and the MCI decided to recommend to the  

Government of India to issue the permission letter for  

establishment of the College with an annual intake of 150  

students for the academic year 2008-2009.  The  

Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare, however, took a decision not to grant permission  

for establishment of the College for the academic year 2008-

2009 and communicated this decision in its letter dated  

04.08.2008 to the Chairman and Managing Trustee of the  

Geetanjali Foundation.   

3. Aggrieved, the College filed Writ Petition (C) No.357 of  

2008 before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution  

of India and on 03.09.2008 this Court disposed of the writ  

petition after recording the statement of the learned  

Additional Solicitor General that the revised orders will be  

passed by the Government of India within a week in respect  

of the College.  In the order dated 03.09.2008 disposing of

Page 5

5

the writ petition of the College, this Court further observed  

that the College may complete the admissions by  

30.09.2008 in accordance with the rules and procedure laid  

down for the purpose of admissions.  The Government of  

India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, then issued a  

permission letter dated 16.09.2008 for establishment of the  

College with an annual intake capacity of 150 students with  

prospective effect from the academic year 2008-2009 under  

Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.  In  

this permission letter dated 16.09.2008, it was inter alia  

stipulated that the admission process for the academic year  

2008-2009 has to be completed by the College within the  

time schedule indicated in the Regulations on Graduate  

Medical Education, 1997 made by the MCI.   

4.  The College by its letter dated 25.09.2008 requested  

the President, Federation of Private Medical and Dental  

Colleges of Rajasthan to allot students to the College by  

conducting counselling and the College also issued an  

advertisement on 26.09.2008 in leading newspapers inviting  

applications from the candidates for admission counselling  

to the first year MBBS course for the academic year 2008-

Page 6

6

2009 on the basis of PC-PMT/10+2 examination with  

minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as  

per regulations of the MCI and stated in the advertisement  

that the last date of receipt of the applications would be  

28.09.2008 and the candidates will be selected on the basis  

of merit.  After counselling, out of the 150 seats of the  

College in first year MBBS course, 16 seats were filled up by  

students from PC-PMT conducted by the Federation of  

Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan and 101  

seats were filled up from amongst candidates who had  

passed the 10+2 examination and 23 seats of the NRI quota  

were filled up by the College.  

5. Some of the candidates who were selected through the  

RPMT-2008 and placed in the waiting list of candidates for  

admission to the MBBS seats in the medical colleges in the  

State of Rajasthan filed eight writ petitions before the  

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, contending that they  

were entitled to be admitted to the seats of the College in  

the first year MBBS course on the basis of their merit in the  

RPMT-2008 and praying for a direction to the College to  

consider and give them admission in the MBBS course in

Page 7

7

the College against the 85% seats of the 150 seats on the  

basis of their merit in RPMT-2008 by holding counselling  

and further praying that no one should be admitted against  

the 150 seats from any source other than the RPMT-2008.  

The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the  

writ petitions, initially passed an interim order on  

29.09.2008 directing that ten seats in the College will be  

reserved for the writ petitioners.  The learned Single Judge  

of the High Court thereafter passed the final order on  

18.03.2009 holding that the RPMT-2008 was conducted in  

accordance with Regulation 5 of the Regulations on  

Graduate Medical Education, 1997 made by the MCI (for  

short ‘the MCI Regulations’) as well as in accordance with  

Ordinance 272 (IV) and the policy of the State Government  

and the College could not have admitted candidates to the  

85% of the seats in the MBBS course as per its own choice  

at the cost of meritorious students placed in the waiting list  

of candidates found successful in the RPMT-2008.  The  

learned Single Judge of the High Court thus allowed the  

writ petitions and declared that the admissions made by the  

College in MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009

Page 8

8

against 85% of the seats were illegal and directed the State  

to hold counselling from the waiting list of students of  

RPMT-2008 and further directed that the writ petitioners  

will be given admission as per their merit position in the  

waiting list and the process be completed before the  

commencement of the RPMT-2009.  The final order dated  

18.03.2009 of the learned Single Judge was challenged by  

the College as well as the students who were admitted by  

the College in Special Appeals before the Division Bench of  

the High Court.  All these Special Appeals were heard by a  

Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,  

but dismissed by a common order dated 03.09.2009.  

Aggrieved, the students who had been admitted into the  

College have filed Civil Appeal Nos.8142 of 2011 and 8143  

of 2011 and the College has filed Civil Appeal No.8144 of  

2011.                        

6. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Ravinder  

Shrivastav and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel  

for the appellants, submitted that the college had not agreed  

to admit students to its MBBS seats from amongst the  

students selected in the RPMT-2008 in the meeting held on

Page 9

9

15.12.2007 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,  

Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan because the  

College did not have the permission from the Government of  

India to establish the College.  They submitted that the first  

counselling for students selected in the RPMT -2008 for  

admission in the MBBS course was held on 17.07.2008 and  

second and last counselling for such students selected in  

the RPMT-2008 for admission in the MBBS course was over  

on 24.09.2008 and the College received the letter of  

permission from the Government of India for establishing  

the College for MBBS course with an annual intake of 150  

students for the academic year 2008-2009 onwards on  

25.09.2008 and by this date as the second and last  

counselling for the candidates selected on the basis of  

RPMT-2008 was over, the College could not admit the  

students to 85% of the seats in the MBBS course on the  

basis of the RPMT-2008.  They submitted that in these  

peculiar facts the College issued an advertisement in  

leading newspapers inviting applications from the  

candidates for admission in the first year MBBS course for  

the academic year 2008-2009 on the basis of their merit in

Page 10

10

PC-PMT or 10+2 examination.  They submitted that the  

Principal of the R.N.T. Medical College and Controller by his  

letter dated 29.09.2008 also constituted a team of five  

officers with Professor and Head of Department of Pathology  

& Academic Officer of the College as the Chairman to  

supervise the admissions in the College.  They submitted  

that after counselling, 16 students were admitted from the  

list of candidates selected on the basis of PC-PMT  

conducted by the Federation of the Private and Dental  

Colleges of Rajasthan on the basis of their merit and 101  

students were admitted on the basis of their merit in 10+2  

examination in the MBBS course of the College.  

7. They relied upon the judgment of this Court in T.M.A.  

Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8  

SCC 481] in which it has been held that a private unaided  

non-minority  institution has the right to establish and  

administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g)  

of the Constitution of India and that such right includes the  

right to admit students into the institution.  They also cited  

the judgment of this Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of

Page 11

11

Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 537] in which the law  

laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) was clarified and  

it was held that non-minority unaided institutions, like the  

minority institutions, can also legitimately claim unfettered  

fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed  

admission and the State cannot impose a quota of seat  

sharing in such institutions and that this can only be done  

by a consensual arrangement.  They submitted that in P.A.  

Inamdar (supra), this Court further held that all private  

institutions imparting same or similar professional  

education can join together for holding a common entrance  

test satisfying the triple tests of the admission procedure  

being fair, transparent and non-exploitative.  They  

submitted that in accordance with the aforesaid law laid  

down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A.  

Inamdar (supra), a common entrance test, namely, PC-PMT  

2008, was held by the Federation of the Private and Dental  

Colleges of Rajasthan and on the basis of the merit as  

determined in PC-PMT 2008, 16 students have been  

admitted to the MBBS course of the College.  

Page 12

12

8. They submitted that the finding of the High Court that  

admission to the 85% of the seats in the MBBS course of  

the College could, as per the MCI Regulations, be made only  

on the basis of merit as determined in the RPMT is not  

correct.  They submitted that Regulation 4 of the MCI  

Regulations lays down the “eligibility criteria” for admission  

to the MBBS course and it provides that a candidate should  

have completed the age of 17 years on or before the date  

mentioned therein and he should have passed the qualifying  

examination.  They submitted that all the 117 students  

(16+101) admitted to the MBBS course in the College for the  

academic year 2008-2009 fulfilled the requirements  

regarding age and passing of qualifying examination as  

provided in Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations.  They  

submitted that Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations states  

that the selection of students to medical college shall be  

based solely on the merit of the candidate and clause (1) of  

Regulation 5 states that for determining the merit, the  

marks obtained at the qualifying examination may be taken  

into consideration.  They argued that the marks of 101  

students admitted on the basis of their 10+2 qualifying

Page 13

13

examination were taken into consideration and, therefore,  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations had not been violated.  

They submitted that in the facts of the present case since  

the seats of the MBBS course in the College had to be filled  

up for the academic year 2008-2009 on or before  

30.09.2009, the College had no option but to fill up the  

seats on the basis of merit as determined in the 10+2  

examination after publishing the advertisement in the  

leading newspapers.

9. Learned senior counsel for the appellants also  

submitted that none of the students, who had applied  

pursuant to the advertisement published by the College for  

admission on the basis of merit as determined in the PC-

PMT 2008 or the 10+2 examination, had made any  

grievance before any authority that they were not given  

admission on the basis of merit or that students with lesser  

merit had been admitted in the seats for the MBBS course  

in the College for the academic year 2008-2009.  They  

argued that in fact, as desired by the High Court, a report  

was called for on the admissions made by the College in the  

MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 and a

Page 14

14

Committee comprising  the Deputy Secretary, Medical  

Education, Government of Rajasthan, the Registrar,  

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, Dean,  

Medical College, Jhalawar and Professor, M.M. Medical  

College, Ajmer, examined all the records of admissions and  

conducted an enquiry and submitted a report with a finding  

that though the College was directed by the State  

Government to admit students from RPMT-2008,  

admissions were given by the College on the basis of PC-

PMT on merit in 10+2 examinations due to availability of  

short period for admissions and the Rajasthan University of  

Health Sciences has treated the admissions to be irregular  

and not illegal.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants cited the  

judgment of this Court in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai &  

Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 617] in which  

this Court has held that even though under the MCI  

Regulations the appellants could not be admitted to the  

MBBS course in the academic year 2008-2009, for the  

purpose of doing complete justice in the matter, the  

admissions of the appellants therein to the MBBS course in

Page 15

15

the College during the academic year 2008-2009 should not  

be disturbed.  They also submitted that a similar view has  

been taken by this Court in Deepa Thomas & Ors. v. Medical  

Council of India & Ors. [(2012) 3 SCC 430] wherein this  

Court agreed with the view of the MCI and the High Court  

that the admissions of the appellants therein were irregular  

as they had not secured the minimum marks of 50% in the  

common entrance examination as prescribed in the MCI  

Regulations and yet directed, as a special case, that the  

appellants therein shall be allowed to continue and  

complete their MBBS course and should be permitted to  

appear in the University examinations as if they had been  

regularly admitted to the course.  They submitted that in  

the event this Court is of the opinion that the MCI  

Regulations 1997 have been violated in admitting the 117  

students in the MBBS course of the College, to do complete  

justice in the matters, this Court should allow these  

students to continue in the MBBS course in exercise of its  

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as has  

been done in the aforesaid two cases.

Page 16

16

11.  Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the MCI, submitted that the Division Bench of  

the High Court has in the impugned order held that the  

stand of the College that the permission letter dated  

16.09.2008 of the Central Government was received by the  

College on 25.09.2008, i.e. after the second and last  

counselling of students selected in the RPMT-2008 was  

over, appears to be doubtful.  He supported the aforesaid  

finding of the High Court and argued that the College  

avoided to participate in the counselling of students selected  

in the RPMT-2008 even though it was aware that the  

Government of India had granted the permission for  

establishing the College on 16.09.2008.  He submitted that  

the MCI Regulations were made by the MCI with the  

previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of  

power conferred under Section 33 of the Indian Medical  

Council Act, 1956 and was, therefore, statutory in character  

and are binding so far as admissions to medical colleges are  

concerned.  He vehemently argued that the letter dated  

16.09.2008 of the Secretary of the MCI clarifying that  

admissions could be made on the basis of marks in the

Page 17

17

qualifying examination to complete the admissions by 30th  

of September could not override the MCI Regulations.  He  

submitted that Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations, which  

provides the minimum eligibility of students to be admitted  

to the MBBS course, is not the only provision which has to  

be followed by the Medical Colleges for admissions to the  

MBBS course.  He submitted that Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations provided that selection of students to a medical  

college shall be based solely on merit of the candidates and  

clause (2) of Regulation 5 stipulated that in States, having  

more than one university/board/examining body  

conducting the qualifying examination a competitive  

entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a  

uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standard at  

qualifying examination conducted by different agencies.  He  

submitted that selection for the 85% of the seats in the  

College for the academic year 2008-2009 could, therefore,  

be only on the basis of merit as determined in a competitive  

entrance examination and not on the basis of the marks  

obtained in qualifying examination.  He submitted that  

there is a clear finding in the impugned order of the High

Page 18

18

Court that the College was not listed in brochure with the  

application form notified by the Federation of Private  

Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan for PC-PMT 2008  

and in fact no competitive entrance examination was  

conducted for admission to the MBBS course of the College.  

He argued that the admissions of the 16 students in the  

MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 on the basis  

of PC-PMT 2008, thus, were not on the basis of merit as  

determined in a competitive entrance examination as is  

sought to be made out by the appellants.  He submitted that  

names of 101 candidates who had been admitted on the  

basis of their marks in the qualifying examination vis-a-vis  

of the candidates who had not been admitted had not been  

determined in a common competitive entrance examination.  

He argued that the only way the College could comply with  

the provisions of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations was to admit students selected in the RPMT-

2008.  He submitted that in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A.  

Inamdar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the  

appellants, this Court has also held that the admissions to  

the private unaided professional colleges have to be made by

Page 19

19

selection through a common entrance test and in the  

aforesaid judgments, this Court has not held that the MCI  

Regulations will not be followed while giving admissions to  

the MBBS course.  He submitted that this Court, on the  

contrary, has held in Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of  

M.P. & Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 120], State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal  

D. Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83] and Harish Verma &  

Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Anr. [(2003) 8 SCC 69] that the  

Regulations of the MCI laying down the standards of  

education for post-graduate medical courses have to be  

complied with.

12. Mr. Sharan finally submitted that as the admissions to  

85% of the seats in the College for the academic year 2008-

2009 were in violation of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the  

MCI Regulations, the High Court was right in declaring the  

admissions to be invalid.  He submitted that if the Court, in  

exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution,  

shows any sympathy to the students admitted to the MBBS  

course, in breach of the MCI Regulations, there would be  

academic chaos.  According to him, there was no equity  

either in favour of the College or in favour of the students

Page 20

20

who had been admitted to the College in violation of clause  

(2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  He cited the  

decision in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v.  

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [(1986) 2 SCC 667] in  

which this Court rejected the plea that the interests of the  

students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or  

folly of management and that they should be permitted to  

appear at the university examination notwithstanding the  

circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been  

granted to the institution.  He also relied on the  

observations of this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku.  

Sheena Peethambaran & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 719] that  

condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements  

in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the  

problem, but disturbs the discipline of the system and  

ultimately, adversely affects the academic standards.  He  

submitted that in A. B. Bhaskara Rao v. Inspector of Police,  

CBI Vishakapatnam [(2011) 10 SCC 259] this Court has laid  

down the principles governing the exercise of power under  

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and one of the  

principles is that the Court generally does not pass an order

Page 21

21

in contravention of or ignoring the statutory provisions nor  

is the power exercised merely on sympathy.

13. He also cited the observations of this Court in  

Visveswaraiah Technological University & Anr. v. Krishnendu  

Halder & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 606] that no student or college,  

in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State  

and the University can say that such rules should be  

ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges.  

He submitted that if the College was not able to fill up the  

seats in the MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009  

for the reason that the second and last counselling of  

students selected on the basis of RPMT-2008 was over, the  

seats should have been kept vacant and could not have  

been filled up in violation of the MCI Regulations.

14. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel for the State  

of Rajasthan, adopted the arguments of Mr. Amarendra  

Sharan and further submitted that the information book on  

RPMT-2008 mentioned the College as one of the Colleges  

covered by the RPMT-2008 and, therefore, the College  

cannot contend that the students who are selected in the

Page 22

22

RPMT- 2008 were not to be admitted to the MBBS seats of  

the College.  He submitted that at the meeting of the Central  

Under-Graduate Admission Board on 23.09.2008, it was  

decided not to include the College for the counselling as  

there was no intimation from the College, but it was  

recorded in the proceedings of the meeting that if  

information is received from the College then students can  

be provided from the RPMT-2008 by holding counselling at  

the College at Udaipur at their cost.  He submitted that a  

separate counselling could therefore be held for students  

who had been selected on the basis of RPMT-2008 for  

admission to the College if the College had intimated the  

Convener of the Central Under-Graduate Admission Board  

that it had got the permission letter dated 16.09.2008 after  

the second counselling of students selected in the RPMT-

2008.  He submitted if such separate counselling for  

admission to the MBBS seats in the College would have  

been held, it would have been the first counselling so far as  

this College was concerned and there was no bar as per the  

law laid down by this Court for holding such separate  

counselling for the College.

Page 23

23

15. Mr. Naveen Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel  

appearing for the Rajasthan University, adopted the  

arguments of Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior  

counsel appearing for the MCI, and Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik,  

learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, and further  

submitted that the College had been included in the  

information brochure of the RPMT-2008 published on  

26.02.2008 because it had initially agreed to participate in  

the RPMT-2008 at the meeting which took place in  

December, 2007.  He referred to the findings of the Division  

Bench of the High Court in the impugned order that the  

College never raised objection about its inclusion in the  

brochure published by the State Government for RPMT-

2008 when the process of admission was initiated by the  

authorities for holding the RPMT-2008.  He submitted that  

the Division Bench of the High Court has also recorded the  

finding that on 16.09.2008, the College itself has sent a  

letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Health  

Sciences saying that if it gets the approval from the  

Government of India after the second counselling of the  

students selected on the basis of the RPMT-2008, a request

Page 24

24

will be made by the College to suggest the way or to provide  

the merit list of RPMT-2008 students for admission in the  

College.  He submitted that both the learned Single Judge  

and the Division Bench have also taken note of the  

Ordinance 272 of the University which provides that all  

private unaided professional institutions will be under an  

obligation to admit students to the MBBS or the BDS  

courses on the basis of the selection for admission to  

MBBS/BDS courses in the Government Colleges.  He finally  

argued that Mr. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, the Chairman and  

Managing Trustee of the Geetanjali Foundation, had  

furnished a written undertaking on 12.12.2007 that it will  

admit students in MBBS degree only after getting the  

permission from the MCI/Government of India and after  

getting affiliation from the Rajasthan University of Medical  

Sciences, but the College had given admission to the  

students even before getting affiliation from the University.  

16. Ms. Anuradha Soni Verma, appearing for the private  

respondents, who had filed writ petition in the High Court  

submitted that none of the students who had been admitted  

into the College in the MBBS seats for the academic year

Page 25

25

2008-2009 have been enrolled by the University and it is  

only pursuant to the orders of the Court that they had been  

permitted to take examinations of the MBBS course.

FINDINGS     WITH     REASONS   

17. The College is a private unaided professional  

institution and it has been held by this Court in T.M.A. Pai  

Foundation (supra) that a private unaided professional  

institution has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of  

the Constitution of India to establish and administer an  

educational institution and such right will include the right  

to admit students into the institution.  In P.A. Inamdar  

(supra), this Court has explained the judgment in T.M.A. Pai  

Foundation (supra).  Paragraphs 127 and 128 of the  

judgment of this Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra), as reported  

in the SCC, are quoted hereinbelow:

“127. Nowhere in Pai Foundation, either in  the majority or in the minority opinion, have  we found any justification for imposing seat-  sharing quota by the State on unaided  private professional educational institutions  and reservation policy of the State or State  quota seats or management seats.

128.  We make it clear that the observations  in Pai Foundation in paragraph 68 and other

Page 26

26

paragraphs mentioning fixation of percentage  of quota are to be read and understood as  possible consensual arrangements which can  be reached between unaided private  professional institutions and the State.”

Hence, in the absence of a consensual arrangement between  

the College and the State Government, the College was not  

under any legal obligation to admit students to 85% of the  

MBBS seats in the academic years 2008-2009.  The learned  

Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in  

the present batch of cases, however, appear to have  

recorded a finding that a consensual arrangement was there  

between the College and the State Government of Rajasthan  

that 85% of the seats in the MBBS course in the College will  

be filled up from amongst students selected in the RPMT-

2008.  Learned counsel for the appellants have disputed  

this finding of the High Court.  

18. Hence, the first question that we have to decide in this  

case is whether the College had agreed to admit students  

placed in the merit list or waiting list of RPMT-2008 into the  

85% of 150 seats of the MBBS course approved by the  

Central Government.  We find that in the proceedings of the  

meeting held on 15.12.2007 under the Chairmanship of

Page 27

27

Secretary, Medical Education, for conducting a common  

entrance test for admissions to MBBS seats in different  

colleges in the State of Rajasthan, it has been recorded in  

Para 5:

“Students will be made available on 85 per  cent seats through R.P.M.T. to National  Institute of Medical Sciences, Jaipur and  Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital  Udaipur.  Consent has already been given in  this connection earlier by Mahatma Gandhi  Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.   On  the remaining 15 per cent seats (N.R.I.  quota) admissions will be given by these  institutions.”

From the aforesaid proceedings, it is clear that although a  

decision was taken by the authorities that students will be  

made available on 85 per cent seats through R.P.M.T. to  

Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital Udaipur (the  

College), there is no mention that the College (Geetanjali  

Medical College) had given its consent to this arrangement  

although there is a mention that Mahatma Gandhi Medical  

College and Hospital, Jaipur, has given its consent to the  

aforesaid consensual arrangement earlier.  In fact, there  

was no representation of the College at the meeting held on  

15.12.2007 and on 18.12.2007 the Director (Foundation) of

Page 28

28

the College addressed the following letter to the Secretary to  

the Government Medical Education, Government of  

Rajasthan:

“GMCH

HEALTH IS HAPPINESS

GF/GMCH/07       December 18, 2007

Dr. Govind Sharma, IAS Secretary to the Government  Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat  JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Sub: Participation in Admission Procedure

Respected Sir,

In the above reference we have received your  letter to attend the meeting schedule on 15th  December 2007 for participation in the  admission procedure for admission of  students in 2008.  I was not able to attend  the meeting as the MCI inspection was going  on at our place.  Further to this we have  given an undertaking to the MCI that till all  the clearances received from MCI we cannot  participate in the admission procedure.  Therefore we cannot give consent that we will  take the students from PMT or PCMT till we  receive the clearances.

Kindly have a note of the same and oblige.

Thanking you,

Page 29

29

Yours sincerely, For GEETANJALI MEDICAL COLLEGE &  HOSPITAL Sd/-

(M.S. Bhatt) DIRECTOR (FOUNDATION)

             Encl: as above”   

From the aforesaid letter also, it is clear that the College  

was not willing to give consent that it will take students  

from RPMT-2008 till it received the clearances.  When the  

College, however, came to learn that it will be receiving its  

clearances from the Government of India, it wrote a letter  

dated 16.09.2008 to the Vice Chancellor of the Rajasthan  

University of Health Sciences in which it is stated as follows:

“To,     

    The Vice Chancellor,       Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,

  Jaipur.

Sub: - Admissions in M.B.B.S. Course for  Session 2008-09

Hon’ble Sir,

    In the above reference kindly note that  till we have not received the approval for  Govt. of India, However, if the approval comes  after the second counselling that kindly  suggest us the way or/Provide us the Merit

Page 30

30

List of RPMT Students for the admission in  our college.

Kindly do the needful and oblige.

Thanking you,

Sd/- (Nitin Sharma) Authorised Signatory”

In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 16.09.2008, the Vice  

Chancellor of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences  

wrote back that if the College wants to admit students for  

the academic year 2008-2009 then it should confirm the  

number of seats for allotment so that seats may be allotted  

in the upcoming counselling of RPMT-2008 on 23.09.2008.  

The letter dated 23.09.2007 of the Vice Chancellor,  

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, to the College is  

extracted hereinbelow:  

“RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Sector-18, Kumbha Marg,

Partap Nagar, Jaipur-302033

Sr. No.F-11() RPMT/RUHS/2008-09                                                 22nd September, 2008

To,     Nitin Sharma,

Page 31

31

   Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital,     Udaipur.

Sub: Admissions in M.B.B.S. Course for Session  2008-09

Sir,     In reply to your letter dated 16.09.2008, with  

regard to the above said subject, it is submitted that  if you want to admit the students for the session of  2008-09 then you should confirm the number of  seats for allotment so that seats may be allotted in  the upcoming counseling of RPMT-2008 on  23.09.2008.

Sd/- Vice Chancellor”

The aforesaid discussion would show that there is in fact no

consensual arrangement between the College and the State  

or the University that the College will admit students from  

the merit list or wait list of RPMT-2008.  The finding of the  

learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High  

Court that there was such a consensual arrangement  

between the College and the State Government to admit  

students from the merit list or wait list of RPMT-2008 is,  

therefore, erroneous.  Hence, the direction of the High Court  

to the College to consider and admit students from the merit  

list or wait-list of RPMT-2008 will have to be set aside.

Page 32

32

19. We may next consider the question whether the  

admissions of 117 students to the MBBS course of the  

College were within the fundamental right of the College as  

explained by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra).  In  

T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), this Court, while holding that  

a private unaided non-minority institution has the right to  

establish and administer an educational institution under  

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India also held that  

such right will include the right to admit students into the  

institution.  In paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment,  

however, Kirpal, CJ speaking for the Court observed:    

“58. For admission into any professional  institution, merit must play an important  role. While it may not be normally possible to  judge the merit of the applicant who seeks  admission into a school, while seeking  admission to a professional institution and to  become a competent professional, it is  necessary that meritorious candidates are  not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage  by preferences shown to less meritorious but  more influential applicants. Excellence in  professional education would require that  greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a  student seeking admission. Appropriate  regulations for this purpose may be made  keeping in view the other observations made  in this judgment in the context of admissions  to unaided institutions.

Page 33

33

59. Merit is usually determined, for  admission to professional and higher  education colleges, by either the marks that  the student obtains at the qualifying  examination or school leaving certificate  stage followed by the interview, or by a  common entrance test conducted by the  institution, or in the case of professional  colleges, by government agencies.”

The observations in para 58 of the judgment of Kirpal, CJ.  

quoted above make it clear that students seeking admission  

to a professional institution were required to be treated  

fairly and preferences were not to be shown to less  

meritorious but more influential students and greater  

emphasis was required to be laid on the merit of the  

students seeking admission.  In para 59 of the judgment of  

Kirpal, CJ. in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) quoted above, it  

has been further made clear that merit is to be determined  

for admission to professional colleges, by either the marks  

that the student obtains at the qualifying examination, or  

by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or  

in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies.

20.   The judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) has  

been further explained by this Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra)  

and it has been held therein that that non-minority unaided

Page 34

34

institutions, like the minority unaided institutions, have  

also the unfettered fundamental right to choose the  

students to be allowed admission and the procedure  

therefor but the admission procedure so chosen by the  

institution must be fair, transparent and non-exploitative.  

Para 137 of the judgment of this Court in P.A. Inamdar  

(supra), which is relevant for deciding this case, is quoted  

hereinbelow:

“137. Pai Foundation has held that minority  unaided institutions can legitimately claim  unfettered fundamental right to choose the  students to be allowed admission and the  procedure therefor subject to its being fair,  transparent and non-exploitative. The same  principle applies to non-minority unaided  institutions. There may be a single institution  imparting a particular type of education  which is not being imparted by any other  institution and having its own admission  procedure fulfilling the test of being fair,  transparent and non-exploitative. All  institutions imparting same or similar  professional education can join together for  holding a common entrance test satisfying  the abovesaid triple tests. The State can also  provide a procedure of holding a common  entrance test in the interest of securing fair  and merit-based admissions and preventing  mal-administration. The admission procedure  so adopted by private institution or group of  institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of  the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can be  taken over by the State substituting its own

Page 35

35

procedure. The second question is answered  accordingly.”

Thus, in para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra)  

quoted above, this Court has taken the view that all  

institutions imparting same or similar professional  

education can join together for holding a common entrance  

test satisfying the triple tests of the admission procedure  

being fair, transparent and non-exploitative.   

21. Keeping in mind the aforesaid law laid down by this  

Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar (supra), we  

may now examine the admission procedure adopted by the  

College for admitting the students to the MBBS seats for the  

academic year 2008-2009.  The College has admitted 16  

students from the list of candidates selected in the PC-PMT  

2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and  

Dental Colleges of Rajasthan.  The PC-PMT 2008 conducted  

by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of  

Rajasthan did not call for any applications from candidates  

for admission to the MBBS course, but only for the BDS  

course.  Moreover, the College had not been included in the  

brochure published for PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the

Page 36

36

Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of  

Rajasthan.  Consequently, students, who may be interested  

not in the BDS course but in the MBBS course, could not  

have applied to take the PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the  

Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of  

Rajasthan.  As a result, many meritorious students desirous  

of taking admission in the MBBS course in the College  

could not get an opportunity to participate in the PC-PMT  

2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and  

Dental Colleges of Rajasthan.  The admission procedure  

adopted by the College was thus not fair and transparent  

and fell short of the triple tests laid down in P.A. Inamdar  

(supra) and such admission procedure was not within the  

fundamental right of the College to admit students of its  

choice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as  

explained in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra).  

22. The stand of the College, however, is that the College  

had published an advertisement dated 26.09.2008 inviting  

applications from all the eligible candidates who had passed  

the 10+2 examination with minimum 50% marks in  

Physics, Chemistry and Biology individually in all the

Page 37

37

subjects and having English as compulsory subject for  

admission to its MBBS course and in response to such  

advertisement, students had applied and selection of  

students was done on the basis of their merits.  It is,  

however, not disputed that the candidates, who had applied  

in response to the advertisement, had not passed the 10+2  

examination from the same board or university but from  

different boards and universities.  If that be so, the merit of  

the candidates who had applied in response to the  

advertisement could not be evaluated by a uniform standard  

and could only be evaluated by a competitive entrance  

examination of all these students who had applied pursuant  

to the advertisement of the College.  It is not the case of the  

College that any competitive entrance examination of all the  

students, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement,  

was held by the College to determine their comparative  

merit.  Hence, the principle of merit as the basis for  

selection for admission in the profession courses laid down  

by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as  

explained in P.A. Inamdar (supra) has not been followed.  

Thus, even as per the law laid down by this Court in T.M.A.

Page 38

38

Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar (supra), the College has  

not been able to establish that the admissions of 117  

students to its MBBS course for the academic year 2008-

2009 were within its right under Article 19(1)(g) of the  

Constitution.       

23. Moreover, the College was bound to follow the MCI  

Regulations while making the admissions to the MBBS  

seats.  The permission letter dated 16.09.2009 stipulated  

that the admission process for the academic year 2008-

2009 has to be completed within the time schedule  

indicated in the MCI Regulations.  Hence, even if the College  

was required to complete the admission process by  

30.09.2008, it could not violate the MCI Regulations on the  

ground that it had to complete the admission process by  

30.09.2008.  Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Regulation 5  

of the MCI Regulations which deal with the principle of  

merit as the sole basis for selection of candidate for  

admission to a medical college are quoted hereinbelow:

“5. Selection of Students: The selection of  students to medical college shall be based solely  on merit of the candidate and for determination  of the merit, the following criteria be adopted  uniformly throughout the country:

Page 39

39

(1)  In states, having only one Medical College  and one university/board/examining body  conducting the qualifying examination, the  marks obtained at such qualifying examination  may be taken into consideration;  

(2) In states, having more than one university/  board/ examining body conducting the qualifying  examination (or where there is more than one  medical 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 at qualifying examinations conducted  by different agencies;  

(3)  Where there are more than one college in a  state and only one university/board conducting  the qualifying examination, then a joint selection  board be constituted for all the colleges;  

(4) A competitive entrance examination is  absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions  of All India character;”

It will be clear from the provisions of Regulation 5 quoted  

above that the selection of students to medical college is to  

be based solely on merit of the candidate and for  

determination of the merit, the criteria laid down in Clauses  

(1), (2), (3) and (4) will apply.  Clause (2) of Regulation 5 on  

which the MCI relied upon clearly states that in States  

having more than one University/Board/Examining Body  

conducting the qualifying examination a competitive

Page 40

40

entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a  

uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards  

at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies.  

As we have noted, it is not the case of the College that all  

students who applied pursuant to the advertisement had  

passed 10+2 Examinations conducted by one and the same  

University/Board/Examining Body.   Hence, the merit of the  

students who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of  

the College had to be uniformly evaluated by a competitive  

entrance examination, but no such competitive entrance  

examination had been held by the College between all the  

candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement.  

Therefore, there was a clear violation of Clause (2) of  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations in admitting the 101  

students to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2008-

2009 by the College.   

24. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that  

once it is held by the court that the admissions of 117  

students in the MBBS course of the College was in violation  

of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations, the court will have  

to declare the admissions as invalid and the students

Page 41

41

admitted have to be discharged from the MBBS course.  In  

support of this contention three decisions of this Court have  

been cited on behalf of the respondents.  We may now  

examine these three decisions.  In A.P. Christians Medical  

Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.  

(supra), the appellant-society had admitted students to the  

medical college, which was a minority institution, in the 1st  

year MBBS course without fulfilling the conditions for  

running a medical college and in total disregard of the  

provisions of the A.P. Education Act, the Osmania  

University Act and the Regulations of the Osmania  

University.  The appellant-society challenged the State  

Government's refusal to grant permission in a writ petition  

before the High Court but the writ petition was dismissed  

and appeal by way of special leave was filed before this  

Court by the appellant-society and a writ petition was also  

filed before this Court by the students who had been  

admitted to the medical college.  This Court while  

dismissing the appeal as well as the writ petition held that  

the Court cannot issue directions to the university to  

protect the interests of the students who had been admitted

Page 42

42

to the medical college as that would be in clear  

transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the  

Regulations of the University.  The College in this case has  

been granted permission letter to establish a medical college  

after the MCI and the Central Government found the College  

to have satisfied the required conditions.  Hence, the  

decision of this Court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational  

Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (supra) also  

does not  apply to the facts of this case.   

25. In Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran  

& Ors. (supra), a student had to pass Class IX Examination  

to be eligible to appear in Class X Examination conducted  

by the CBSE as per the conditions under the relevant Bye-

laws of the CBSE.  The respondent in that case filled up the  

form for High School Examination but the same was  

withheld by the school authorities on the ground that she  

had not cleared her Class IX Examination.  She filed a writ  

petition in the High Court contending that she had been  

promoted to Class X but was later on declared failed in  

Class IX Examination.  The High Court entertained the writ  

petition and passed an interim order permitting her to take

Page 43

43

the Class X Examination conducted by the CBSE and finally  

directed the CBSE to declare her result of the Class X  

Examination.  The CBSE challenged the decision of the High  

Court before this Court and on these facts the Court held  

that the High Court could not have condoned the lapses or  

overlooked the legal requirements in consideration of mere  

sympathy factor as it disturbs the discipline of the system  

and affects the academic standards.  In Visveswaraiah  

Technological University & Anr. v. Krishnendu Halder & Ors.  

(supra), the respondents secured marks which were more  

than the minimum marks prescribed by the AICTE norms,  

but less than what were prescribed by the University  

Regulations and they were admitted to the Bachelor of  

Engineering course during the academic year 2007-2008.  

When the list of admissions was submitted by the colleges  

to the university for approval, the university refused to  

approve their admissions on the ground that they had  

secured less than the minimum percentage required for  

being eligible to admissions.  Two students filed writ  

petitions before the High Court but the learned Single Judge  

dismissed the writ petition.  In appeal, the Division Bench of

Page 44

44

the High Court directed the university to approve the  

admissions of the two students as they fulfilled the  

eligibility criteria fixed by the AICTE.  The university filed  

appeal before this Court and this Court held that once the  

power of the State and the examining body to fix higher  

qualifications higher than the minimum suggested by the  

AICTE is recognized, the rules and regulations made by the  

State and the university will be binding and will be  

applicable in respect of States, unless AICTE itself  

subsequently modifies its norms by increasing the eligibility  

criteria beyond those fixed by the university and the State.  

This Court observed in para 17, which is quoted  

hereinbelow:  

“17. No student or college, in the teeth of  the existing and prevalent rules of the State  and the University can say that such rules  should be ignored, whenever there are  unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the  State/University, may, in spite of vacancies,  continue with the higher eligibility criteria to  maintain better standards of higher  education in the State or in the colleges  affiliated to the University. Determination of  such standards, being part of the academic  policy of the University, are beyond the  purview of judicial review, unless it is  established that such standards are  arbitrary or `adversely affect' the standards  if any fixed by the Central Body under a

Page 45

45

Central enactment. The order of the Division  Bench is therefore unsustainable.”

26. Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations, as we have seen,  

deals with selection of students to medical college on the  

basis of merit of the candidates and does not deal with the  

eligibility of students for admission to MBBS course.  It is  

Regulation 4 which lays down the “eligibility criteria”  for  

admission to the medical course and it provides that no  

candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS  

course until: (i) he/she has completed the age of 17 years  

on or before the 31st December of the year of admission to  

the MBBS course and (ii) he/she has passed the qualifying  

examination as stipulated therein.  It is not the case of the  

MCI that any of the 117 students, who had been admitted  

to the MBBS course, do not fulfill the eligibility criteria as  

laid down in Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations.  The case  

of the MCI is that the provisions of clause (2) of Regulation 5  

relating to selection on the basis of merit, as discussed  

above, has been violated.  There is, in our considered  

opinion, a difference between a candidate not fulfilling the  

eligibility criteria for admission to the MBBS course and a

Page 46

46

candidate who fulfils the eligibility criteria but has not been  

admitted in accordance with the procedure for selection on  

the basis of merit.  In a case where a candidate does not  

fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to a course or for  

taking an examination, he cannot ask the Court to relax the  

eligibility criteria.  But this is not what the appellants have  

asked for in this case before us.  Hence, the decisions of this  

Court in Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena  

Peethambaran & Ors. (supra) and Visveswaraiah  

Technological University & Anr. v. Krishnendu Halder & Ors.  

(supra) do not apply to the facts of this case.   

27. In the facts of this case, the College was at fault in not  

holding a competitive entrance examination for determining  

the inter-se merit of the students who had applied to the  

College for admission into the MBBS seats of the College in  

accordance with clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations and in not following a transparent and fair  

admission procedure and the 117 students who had been  

admitted to the MBBS course in the College were not to be  

blamed for these lapses on the part of the College.   In  

Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &

Page 47

47

Ors. (supra), this Court has held that where the admissions  

of the students took place due to the fault of rule-making  

authority in not making the State Rules, 2008 in conformity  

of the MCI Regulations, the students if discharged from the  

MBBS course, will suffer grave injustice and this Court  

should therefore exercise its power under Article 142 of the  

Constitution to do complete justice between the parties and  

allow the students to continue to study the MBBS course.  

Similarly, in Deepa Thomas & Ors. v. Medical Council of  

India & Ors. (supra) this Court held that since irregular  

admissions were made by the colleges in violation of the  

MCI Regulations due to mistake or omission in the  

Prospectus issued by colleges, the students who have been  

admitted should be allowed to continue the MBBS course  

and passed orders accordingly in exercise of power under  

Article 142 of the Constitution.  We are, thus, of the view  

that the 117 students, who have been admitted in the  

MBBS course by the College for the academic year 2008 in  

violation of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations, should not be disturbed.  

Page 48

48

28. The fact, however, remains, that the College had  

violated clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations in  

making the admissions of 117 students to the MBBS course  

for the academic year 2008-2009 and the admissions were  

not within the right of the College under Article 19(1)(g) of  

the Constitution as explained in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and  

P.A. Inamdar (supra).  The College must, therefore, suffer  

some penalty as a deterrent measure so that it does not  

repeat such violation of the MCI Regulations in future.  

Moreover, if no punitive order is passed, other colleges may  

be encouraged to violate the MCI Regulations with impunity.  

In Deepa Thomas & Ors. v. Medical Council of India & Ors.  

(supra), this Court directed the College to surrender seats  

equal to the number of irregular admissions in  phased  

manner starting with the admissions of the year 2012.  In  

the present case, there were as many as 117 admissions  

contrary to the provisions of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the  

MCI Regulations.  The learned Single Judge of the High  

Court had directed ten seats to be kept vacant for the  

academic year 2008-2009 and we are told that those ten  

seats kept vacant have not been filled up and the College

Page 49

49

has not received any fees for the ten seats.  Excluding these  

ten seats, the College will have to surrender 107 seats in a  

phased manner, not more than ten seats in each academic  

year beginning from the academic year 2012-2013.  These  

107 seats will be surrendered to the State Government and  

the State Government will fill up these 107 seats on the  

basis of merit as determined in the RPMT or any other  

common entrance test conducted by the State Government  

or its agency for admissions to Government Medical  

Colleges and the fees of the candidates who are admitted to  

the 107 seats will be the same as fixed for the Government  

Medical Colleges.

29.  The 117 students, who were admitted to the MBBS  

course, may not be at fault if the College did not hold a  

competitive entrance examination for determining the inter  

se merit of students who had applied to the College in the  

MBBS seats of the College, but they are beneficiaries of  

violation of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations  

by the College.  They have got admission into the College  

without any proper evaluation of their merit vis-à-vis the  

other students who had applied but had not been admitted

Page 50

50

in a competitive entrance examination.  We have held in  

Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [2012 (5) SCALE  

328 = JT 2012 (5) SC 102] that beneficiaries of admissions  

made contrary to the MCI Regulations must pay some  

amount for development of infrastructure in the medical  

college of the government as a condition for allowing them  

to continue their MBBS studies by our orders under Article  

142 of the Constitution.  We, therefore, hold that each of the  

117 students who have been admitted in the MBBS seats in  

the College will pay Rs.3 lacs to the State Government on  

account of their admission in violation of clause (2) of  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations and the total amount  

received by the State Government from the 117 students  

will be spent for improvement of infrastructure and  

laboratories in the Government Medical Colleges of the State  

and for no other purpose.    

CONCLUSIONS

30. We accordingly hold:

(i) that there was no agreement between the College  

and the State Government to admit students into its  

MBBS course on the basis of RPMT-2008 and the

Page 51

51

finding of the High Court in this regard is erroneous  

and the High Court could not have directed the  

College to fill up its seats on the basis of merit of  

students as determined in RPMT-2008 as per the  

law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation as explained  

in P.A. Inamdar (supra).  Hence, the direction of the  

High Court to fill up the seats by students selected  

or wait listed in the RPMT-2008 is set aside.

(ii) The admissions of 117 students to the MBBS course  

for the academic year 2008-2009 in the College were  

contrary to clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations and were not within the right of the  

College under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as  

explained by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation  

and P.A. Inamdar (supra).

(iii) In exercise of our power under Article 142 of the  

Constitution, we direct that none of the 117  

students who were otherwise eligible for admission  

to the MBBS course will be disturbed from pursuing  

their MBBS course, subject to the condition that  

they will each pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs within a period

Page 52

52

of three months from today to the State Government  

and in the event of default, the students will not be  

permitted to take the final year examination and the  

admission of the defaulting students shall stand  

cancelled and the College will have no liability to  

repay the admission fee already paid.  The amount  

so paid to the State Government shall be spent by  

the State Government for improvement of  

infrastructure and laboratories of the Government  

medical college of the State and for no other  

purpose.    

(iv) The College which was responsible for making the  

admissions in violation of clause (2) of Regulation 5  

of the MCI Regulations will surrender 107 (117 – 10)  

MBBS seats to the State Government phase wise,  

not more than ten in any academic year beginning  

from the academic year 2012-2013 and these  

surrendered seats will be filled up by the students  

selected in RPMT or any other common entrance  

test conducted by the State Government of  

Rajasthan or its agency for admissions to the

Page 53

53

Government Colleges and the fees payable by the  

students admitted to the surrendered seats would  

be the same as that payable by the students of  

Government Colleges.   

(v) The results of the students in the MBBS course held  

up on account of interim orders passed by the Court  

may now be published.   

The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified  

accordingly and the appeals are allowed to the extent as  

indicated in this judgment.  The pending I.A. Nos. 3 and 4  

stand disposed of.                

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO._6210_OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C)  No.24967 of 2011) AND CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     6211     OF    2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25353 of 2011):

    Leave granted.  I.A. No.2 of 2011 in Civil Appeal  

arising out of SLP(C) No. 24967 of 2011 for deletion of the  

proforma respondent Nos.5 to 19 is allowed.  I.A. No. 3 of  

2011 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 25353 of 2011  

for deletionof the proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 18 is  

allowed.

Page 54

54

2. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article  

136 of the Constitution of India against the common order  

dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the  

Rajasthan High Court in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.632 of  

2011 and DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.407 of 2011.

FACTS

3. The facts very briefly are that by a consensual  

arrangement between the State Government of Rajasthan  

and Mahatama Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (for  

short ‘the College’) 85% of the MBBS seats in the College are  

filled up by the allocation of students by the Competent  

Authority.  The Competent Authority, namely,  the Convener  

of the Central Under-Graduate Admission Board (for short  

‘the Convener’) by his letter dated 31.07.2008 to the  

Principal of the College allotted 85 students who had been  

selected in the Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test 2008 (for short  

‘the RPMT-2008’) for admission to the payments seats of the  

College.  Thereafter, by another letter 30.08.2008, the  

Convener sent to the College a list of re-

shuffled/allotted/wait-listed students for admission in the  

MBBS seats in the College.  In this letter dated 30.08.2008,

Page 55

55

it was stated that the last date of joining the course for the  

students so allotted would be 11.09.2008 and the list of  

vacancies which are not filled up shall be displayed on the  

notice board of the College on 12.09.2008 and the students  

from the wait-list will be admitted to the vacancies and this  

must be completed by 18.09.2008.  On 25.09.2008, the  

Convener sent another letter dated 25.09.2008 to the  

College enclosing therewith a list of candidates who had  

been selected/re-shuffled for the MBBS Course for the year  

2008 in the extended second round of counselling and it  

was stated in this letter that the last date of joining the  

course for these students would be 27.09.2008 and the list  

of vacancies shall be displayed on the notice board of the  

College on 28.09.2008 at 10.00 a.m. and the students shall  

be admitted from the wait-list into the vacancies and such  

admission process must be completed by 30.09.2008.  On  

29.09.2008, the Additional Principal of the College issued  

an office order that the residual seats which remained  

vacant even after the second round of counselling will be  

filled up by an admission process which will start on  

30.09.2008 at 6.00 p.m. in the Medical Education Unit of

Page 56

56

the College and in such admission process preference will  

be given to candidates who have qualified in the RPMT-2008  

and if the seats are still vacant, the same will be offered to  

candidates on the basis of 10+2 marks and the admission  

process will be completed on the same date i.e. 30.09.2008.  

Accordingly, on 30.09.2008, an admission notice for the  

year 2008-2009 was put up by the College inviting  

applications for admission to the MBBS Course for the year  

2008-2009 from students who have passed 10+2  

examination with minimum 50% marks in Physics,  

Chemistry and Biology in case of general candidates and  

minimum of 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology  

for SC/ST/OBC candidates as per the guidelines of the  

Medical Council of India (for short ‘the MCI’) and it was  

stated in the admission notice that RPMT-2008 candidates  

will be given preference.  Pursuant to this admission notice,  

a total of 21 students were admitted to the unfilled seats in  

the MBBS Course for the academic year 2008-2009 in the  

College.  Out of these 21 students, 15 students had been  

selected in the RPMT-2008 and 6 students had not been  

selected in the RPMT-2008.

Page 57

57

4. Thereafter, these 21 students filed S.B. Civil Writ  

Petition No.2946 of 2010 in the Rajasthan High Court and  

their case in the writ petition was that pursuant to the  

admission notice dated 30.09.2008 they applied for  

admission to the MBBS Course in the college and they were  

given admission and they deposited the fees and started  

pursuing studies in the MBBS Course in the college, but  

they were not allowed to take the examinations by the  

authorities.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court  

found that the MCI had issued an order dated 04.02.2010  

directing the college to discharge the 6 students who had  

not been selected in the RPMT-2008 on the ground that  

they had been admitted to the MBBS Course in violation of  

Regulation 5 of the Medical Council of India Regulations  

1997 (for short ‘the MCI Regulations’). By order dated  

18.03.2011 the learned Single Judge of the High Court  

allowed the writ petitions of 15 students who had qualified  

in the RPMT-2008 but dismissed the writ petitions of the 6  

students who were discharged pursuant to the order dated  

04.02.2010 of the MCI on the ground that they had not  

been selected in the RPMT-2008.  Aggrieved, the 6 students

Page 58

58

and the College filed D.B. Special Appeal No.407 of 2011  

and D.B. Special Appeal (Print) No.632 of 2011 but by the  

impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has  

dismissed the appeals.   Aggrieved, the 6 students and the  

College have filed these civil appeals.   

CONTENTIONS     ON     BEHALF     OF     THE     APPELLANTS  :

5. Mr. Maninder Singh and Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned  

counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the  

admission of the 6 students in the College were earlier  

challenged in three writ petitions by students who had  

qualified in the RPMT-2008 namely, Miss Divya Gupta, Miss  

Heena Soni and Mr. Mohd. Zibran and in these writ  

petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13419 of 2008, S.B.  

Civil Writ Petition No.10350 of 2008 and S.B. Civil Writ  

Petition No.11165 of 2008), the MCI was also a respondent  

and by a common order dated 26.05.2009 the learned  

Single Judge disposed of the three writ petitions with the  

direction that the three writ petitioners will be admitted in  

the MBBS (First Year Course) against 15% Management  

Quota for the academic year 2009-2010 and the writ  

petitioners will be charged fees which are charged to the

Page 59

59

students admitted on the basis of their merit against 85% of  

the seats to be filled up by the Competent Authority of the  

State Government and these admissions will be within the  

annual intake strength as approved by the MCI.  They  

submitted that by the order dated 26.05.2009 passed in the  

earlier three writ petitions, the admission of the 6 students  

were not disturbed by the learned Single Judge of the High  

Court.  They argued that the order dated 26.05.2009 of the  

learned Single Judge in the three writ petitions of 2008 has  

become final and the MCI therefore could not have passed  

the order dated 04.02.2010 discharging the 6 students from  

the MBBS Course on the ground that they have not been  

selected in the RPMT-2008.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted  

that the only reason given by the MCI in its order dated  

04.02.2010 for discharging the 6 students was that they  

have not passed the RPMT-2008 but the Secretary of the  

MCI in his letter dated 16.09.2009 had clarified that for the  

purpose of completing the admissions within the time  

schedule fixed by this Court in the case of Mirdul Dhar and  

Another vs. Union of India and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 65], i.e.

Page 60

60

30th September of the year, admissions could also be done  

on the basis of marks secured in the 10+2 examination as  

provided in Regulation 5(1) of the MCI Regulation.  They  

submitted that since the 6 students have been given  

admission on the last date of the time schedule for the  

purpose of filling up the unfilled seats of MBBS Course,  

these admissions on the basis of their marks in 10+2  

examination are in accord with Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of  

the MCI Regulations.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants finally  

submitted that it is not the case of the MCI that the 6  

students did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to  

the MBBS course as provided in Regulation 4 of the MCI  

Regulation.  They submitted that all the 6 students satisfied  

the eligibility criteria as they were above 17 years and had  

also passed the qualifying examinations.  They argued that  

the case of the MCI was that clause (2) of Regulation 5 of  

the MCI Regulations has been violated and for such  

violation, if any, the 6 students who have been pursuing  

their MBBS course since 2008 should not be disturbed.  

They argued that this is, therefore, a fit case in which this

Page 61

61

Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the  

Constitution should protect the admission of the 6  

students.  They cited the judgment in Rajendra Prasad  

Mathur v. Karnataka University and Another (1986 Supp.  

SCC 740) in which this Court has held that though the  

appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering  

degree course and had no legitimate claim to such  

admission, the blame for the wrongful admission lie more  

upon the Engineering College and, therefore, the appellants  

must be allowed to continue their studies in the respective  

Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission.  

They also relied upon the decision of this Court in A. Sudha  

v. University of Mysore and Another [(1987) 4 SCC 537], in  

which it was similarly held that though the appellant was  

not eligible for admission in the first year MBBS course of  

the Mysore University, the appellant was innocent and  

should not be penalized by not allowing her to continue her  

studies in the MBBS course.  They also relied on the  

observations of this Court in Association of Management of  

Unaided Private Medical and Dental College v. Pravesh  

Niyantran Samiti and Others [(2005) 13 SCC 704] that in a

Page 62

62

medical college no seat should be allowed to go waste and  

contended that if no student of the RPMT-2008 was  

available for admission to the unfilled seats on the last date  

of admission, the College had no option but to fill up the  

seats by six students on the basis of their marks in the  

10+2 Examination.  They also referred to the order in  

Monika Ranka and Others v. Medical Council of India and  

Others [(2010) 10 SCC 233] in which this Court after taking  

note of the fact that the candidates who have secured less  

than 50% marks in the entrance examination had been  

admitted in MBBS course in the R.D. Gardi Medical College,  

Ujjain, M.P., directed that their admissions should not be  

disturbed and ordered to reduce from the management  

quota for the year 2009-2010 the number of seats equal to  

the number of irregular admissions.   

CONTENTIONS     ON     BEHALF     OF     THE     RESPONDENTS  :

8. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the MCI, on the other hand, submitted that  

seats which remained vacant even after the second  

counselling cannot be filled up in breach of the MCI

Page 63

63

Regulations.  He submitted that in the present case the  

High Court has clearly held that the admission of the 6  

students was in violation of Clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the  

MCI Regulations which requires that students could be  

admitted on the basis of their merit as determined in  

Competitive Entrance Examination.  He vehemently argued  

that since the Competitive Entrance Examination, namely,  

RPMT-2008, was conducted by the State Government of  

Rajasthan, the College could admit students to the MBBS  

Course in the seats remaining vacant after second  

counselling only from amongst the RPMT-2008 selected  

candidates on the basis of their merit.  He submitted that  

this Court should not therefore disturb the impugned orders  

of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the  

High Court.  The learned counsel for the State adopted the  

arguments of Mr. Sharan.   

FINDINGS     WITH     REASONS  :

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned  

counsel for the parties and we do think that we can hold  

that because of the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the

Page 64

64

learned Single Judge of the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ  

Petition Nos.13419 of 2008, 10350 of 2008 and 11165 of  

2008, which had attained finality, the MCI could not have  

issued the order dated 04.02.2010 discharging the six  

students from the MBBS Course on the ground that they  

had not been selected in the RPMT-2008 and that their  

admissions were in breach of the provisions of clause (2) of  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  We take this view  

because we find on a reading of the order dated 26.05.2009  

of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the  

aforesaid three writ petitions that the question as to  

whether the admission of the six students was in breach of  

clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations was not in  

issue in the aforesaid three writ petitions.  The learned  

Single Judge of the High Court has disposed of the three  

writ petitions on the basis of a compromise between the writ  

petitioners on the one hand, and the respondent nos. 4 and  

5, on the other hand, and the compromise was that the  

three writ petitioners would be granted admission in the  

MBBS Course for the academic year 2009-2010.  The  

learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, has

Page 65

65

further directed that their admissions will be adjusted  

against 15% management seats which are available to the  

college and not against 85% seats which are to be filled  

strictly on the basis of the merit list sent by the Convener  

and that the students will be charged fee which is ordinarily  

to be deposited by the students who are admitted on the  

basis of their merit against 85% State quota seats and that  

the admissions will be within the annual intake strength as  

approved by the MCI.  As the College has not produced the  

pleadings before this Court in the three writ petitions to  

show that an issue was raised before the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions  

by the MCI that the admission of the 6 students was in  

breach of clause (2) of   Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations, the principles laid down in Section 11 of the  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to res judicata will  

not apply.  As a matter of fact, when the order dated  

26.05.2009 was passed by the learned Single Judge of the  

High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions, the MCI  

had no information that the six students had not been  

selected in the RPMT-2008 and it was only in August, 2009,

Page 66

66

and thereafter that the MCI came to learn about the breach  

of the provisions of Regulation 5 and accordingly MCI  

issued orders to immediately discharge six students.   

10.   We cannot also accept the contention of the  

appellants that the College could admit students on the  

basis of marks obtained by them in the qualifying  

examinations under Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations.  The College has relied upon the letter dated  

16.09.2009 of the Secretary of the MCI clarifying that for  

the purpose of completing the admissions within the time  

schedule fixed by the Court as in the case of Mirdul Dhar  

and Another vs. Union of India and Others (supra), i.e., 30th  

September of the year, the admission to the MBBS course  

could be done on the basis of marks secured in 10+2  

Examination, as provided in Regulation 5(1) of the MCI  

Regulations.  But a reading of Regulation 5(1) of the MCI  

Regulations quoted above would show that this provision  

applies only in a State where one university or board or  

examining body conducts the qualifying examination, in  

which case, the marks obtained at such qualifying  

examination may be taken into consideration.  In the State

Page 67

67

of Rajasthan, there are more than one  

university/board/examining body conducting qualifying  

examination and therefore Regulation 5(1) of the MCI  

Regulations does not apply.  As the State of Rajasthan has  

more than one University/Board/Examining Body  

conducting qualifying examinations, clause (2) of Regulation  

5 of the MCI Regulations, which provides that a competitive  

entrance examination will have to be held so as to achieve a  

uniform evaluation, will apply.  The College, therefore, was  

bound to hold a competitive entrance examination in  

accordance with clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations or enter into a consensual arrangement with  

the State Government to admit students on the basis of the  

Competitive Entrance Examination conducted by the State  

Government.  This is exactly what the College has done.  It  

had entered into a consensual arrangement with the State  

Government to admit students on the basis of merit as  

determined in the RPMT-2008.  In our considered opinion  

therefore, the clarification in the letter dated 16.09.2009 of  

the Secretary of the MCI that for the purpose of admissions  

within the time schedule fixed by this Court, admission can

Page 68

68

also be made on the basis of marks secured in the 10+2  

Examination as provided in Regulation 5(1) of the MCI  

Regulations is not in accord with the fact situation in State  

of Rajasthan.  The admission of the six students by the  

College to its MBBS Course on 30.09.2008 was, therefore,  

in breach of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations.   

11.    We are, however, of the view that in this case also, as  

in the case of Geetanjali Medical College, the violation of  

clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations is by the  

College.  In this case also, as in the case of Geetanjali  

Medical College, the case of the MCI is not that the six  

students were not eligible for admission to the MBBS  

Course in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down  

in Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations, but that they have  

not been selected in the RPMT-2008, which was the  

competitive entrance examination conducted in accordance  

with clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  

Moreover, in this case also, as in the case of Geetanjali  

Medical College, the six students had got admission to the  

MBBS course not on the basis of their merit determined in

Page 69

69

the RPMT-2008 in accordance with clause (2) of Regulation  

5 of the MCI Regulations, but on the basis of their marks in  

the 10+2 and thus they were beneficiaries of the violation of  

clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.   

12.     Hence, for the reasons stated in our judgment in the  

case of Geetanjali Medical College, we invoke our powers  

under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct that the  

admission of the 6 students in the MBBS Course will not be  

disturbed subject to the condition that each of the 6  

students pay to the State Government Rs.3 lacs for  

development of infrastructure of government medical  

colleges within a period of three months from today failing  

which they will not be allowed to take the final MBBS  

examinations and their admission will be cancelled.  

Considering, however, the fact that the College has violated  

the provisions of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations, as a deterrent measure to prevent similar  

breach of the MCI Regulations in future, we direct that the  

College will surrender six seats in the MBBS course for the  

academic year 2012-2013 to the State Government to be  

filled up on the basis of the RPMT or any other common

Page 70

70

entrance test conducted by the State Government of  

Rajasthan or its agency for admission to the MBBS Course  

and the fee that will be payable by the students admitted to  

the six seats will be the same as are payable by the students  

admitted on the basis of RPMT or another common entrance  

test conducted by the State Government or its agency.  The  

impugned orders of the High Court are modified accordingly  

and the appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated in  

this judgment.  No costs.  

13.  Before we part with this case, we would like to  

reiterate what we have held in paragraphs 30 and 31 of our  

judgment in the case of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh  

& Ors. [2012 (5) SCALE 328 = JT 2012 (5) SC 102]:

“30. Thus, the need of the hour is that  binding dicta be prescribed and statutory  regulations be enforced, so that all  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

Page 71

71

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 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

Page 72

72

the second counselling, 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 counselling to be conducted by  the concerned authority 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

Page 73

73

of MBBS/BDS.  Under the directions of  this Court, second counselling should  be the final counselling, as this Court  has already held in the case of Ms.  Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.  [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third  counselling 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  counselling.  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 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

Page 74

74

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 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.

Page 75

75

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.

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 counselling, the unfilled  seats from all quotas shall be deemed to  have been surrendered in favour of the  respective States and shall be filled

Page 76

76

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 counselling and they  shall furnish the complete details, list of  seats filled and vacant in the respective  states, immediately after each  counselling.   

h) No college shall fill up its seats in any  other manner.”

.……………………….J.                                                             (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                             (Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi, August 30, 2012.