RISHABH CHOUDHARY Vs UNION OF INDIA .
Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000677-000677 / 2016
Diary number: 28503 / 2016
Advocates: PRAGYA BAGHEL Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 677 OF 2016
Rishabh Choudhary .….Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 862 OF 2016
Sandeep Kumar & Anr. ….Petitioners
versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
W.P. (C) No. 677 OF 2016
1. The question for consideration in this writ petition filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution concerns the validity of
admission granted to the petitioner by respondent No.3 (C.M.
Medical College & Hospital - for short the College) to the
MBBS course. In our opinion, the admission granted by the
College to the petitioner was unjustified and therefore his
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 1 of 10
Page 2
admission is set aside.
2. On 21st December, 2010 a gazette notification was issued
by the Medical Council of India amending the “Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997” to the effect, inter alia,
that admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on
marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(for short NEET). This notification was challenged by,
amongst others, Christian Medical College Vellore in a batch
of petitions before this Court which came to be allowed. The
decision of this Court is dated 18th July, 2013 and is reported
as Christian Medical College, Vellore & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.1 The gazette notification dated 21st December,
2010 was quashed. As a result, admission of a student to the
MBBS course through NEET was no longer mandatory.
3. Subsequently, petitions were filed for a review of the
decision rendered by this Court and these review petitions
ultimately came to be referred to a Bench of five learned
judges of this Court. By an order dated 11th April, 2016 in
Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College,
Vellore & Ors.2 the review petitions were allowed and the
1 (2014) 2 SCC 305 2 (2016) 4 SCC 342 W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 2 of 10
Page 3
decision rendered by this Court on 18th July, 2013 was
recalled and it was directed that all the matters be considered
afresh.
4. Prior to this, the College wrote to the State of
Chhattisgarh on or about 29th October, 2015 seeking
permission to conduct examinations for the management
quota and NRI seats for the MBBS course for the academic
year 2016-17. The State of Chhattisgarh granted permission
to the College to conduct examinations by its letter dated 5th
November, 2015.
5. Consequent upon the permission granted by the State of
Chhattisgarh to conduct examinations, the College issued an
advertisement inviting applications on 28th January, 2016
and eventually conducted the examination on 3rd April, 2016.
The examination called CGMAT-2016 was monitored by the
State of Chhattisgarh and according to the College as well as
the State there were no irregularities in the conduct of the
examination.
6. The result of the examination was declared on 11th April,
2016 and the petitioner qualified in the examination. On 19th
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 3 of 10
Page 4
April, 2016 that is after this Court had decided to review its
decision and had recalled the judgment dated 18th July, 2013,
counseling was conducted for the petitioner and he was
granted admission for the MBBS course by the College after
all formalities were completed.
7. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Medical
Council of India published a notification in 2015 amending
the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997”
whereby a time schedule for completion of the admission
process for First MBBS Course was prescribed. This
notification is reproduced and the Schedule given therein was
approved in Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India3 decided on
18th January, 2016. As per the prescribed schedule, the
conduct of entrance examination was to take place between
1st and 7th May and the result of the qualifying
examination/entrance examination was to be declared by 1st
June. In other words, the examination conducted by the
College on 3rd April, 2016 being CGMAT-2016 was in defiance
of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India, and
the schedule approved by this Court. Similarly, admission
3 (2016) 11 SCC 225 W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 4 of 10
Page 5
granted to the petitioner on 19th April, 2016 was
notwithstanding the orders of this Court passed on 11th April,
2016 read with the notification dated 21st December, 2010
and the schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
8. There are a few other orders passed by this Court which
are of some significance. On 28th April, 2016 it was directed
by this Court in Sankalp Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors.4 that NEET Phase I would be held in terms of
the notification dated 21st December, 2010 issued by the
Medical Council of India. The All India Pre-Medical Test
would be held on 1st May, 2016. Thereafter, Phase II of NEET
for the left out candidates would be held on 24th July, 2016.
It was made clear that since the judgment and order dated
18th July, 2013 had been recalled, the notification dated 21st
December, 2010 was in operation.
9. By an order dated 6th May, 2016 in Sankalp Charitable
Trust it was made clear that no examination shall be
permitted to be held for admission for MBBS studies by any
private college or association or any private/deemed
University.
4 (2016) 7 SCC 487 W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 5 of 10
Page 6
10. Subsequently on 9th May, 2016 this Court declined to
modify the order dated 28th April, 2016. An order was also
passed making it clear that all such candidates who could not
appear in NEET-I and those who had appeared but had an
apprehension that they had not prepared well, would be
permitted to appear in NEET-II subject to an option from
these candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1. It
was further clarified that only NEET would enable students to
get admission to MBBS studies.
11. In view of all these orders passed by this Court from time
to time, it is more than abundantly clear that the notification
dated 21st December, 2010 stood resurrected and that
admissions to the MBBS course could only through NEET-I
and NEET-II. No other process of admission was permissible.
Given this background, the Director of Medical Education in
Chhattisgarh wrote to the College on or about 13th July, 2016
to take steps to cancel all the admissions made by the College
in terms of the examination CGMAT – 2016 held for students
for the management quota and NRI quota. Eventually by a
letter dated 28th July, 2016 the Director of Medical Education
in Chhattisgarh recommended to the College to cancel
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 6 of 10
Page 7
admissions made to the MBBS course. This prompted the
petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court.
12. It is submitted and prayed by the petitioner that since he
had already been granted admission by the College after the
examination CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College and
supervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and in
which there were no allegations of impropriety, his admission
should not be disturbed. It is submitted that the petitioner
was certainly not at fault and there is no reason why he
should be the victim of an apparent wrong committed by the
College as also by the State of Chhattisgarh.
13. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the College
supporting him but are not inclined to accept them. It is
quite clear that the examination CGMAT-2016 was conducted
by the College on 3rd April, 2016 contrary to the schedule
prescribed by the Medical Council of India (and approved by
this Court) for holding the MBBS entrance examinations. The
question is not of any impropriety in the conduct of the
examination but the question is really one of adhering to a
particular discipline laid down by the Medical Council of India
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 7 of 10
Page 8
and approved by this Court.
14. Furthermore we find that counseling was carried out
insofar as the petitioner is concerned on 19th April, 2016
which is after the decision of this Court on 11th April, 2016
recalling the decision dated 18th July, 2013. There was
absolutely no occasion for the College to have conducted the
counseling after the recall order passed by this Court on 11 th
April, 2016. The effect of the recall order, as mentioned
above, was that the notification issued by the Medical Council
of India on 21st December, 2010 effectively stood revived in
the sense that NEET was the only option available for
admission to the MBBS course. The College and the State of
Chhattisgarh ought to have been aware of these facts, but
seem to have turned a blind eye not only to the orders of this
Court but to the notifications issued by the Medical Council of
India.
15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed
for the present state of affairs - whether it is the students or
the College or the State of Chhattisgarh. The question is
really whether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our
opinion, the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 8 of 10
Page 9
College and the State of Chhattisgarh have not adhered to the
law with the result that the petitioner became a victim of
circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against
the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim of
their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is
unfortunate but it cannot be helped.
16. We were told during the course of submissions that some
similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified
in the examination. Those students like the petitioner who did
not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the
College and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that
gamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our
sympathies may be with the petitioner and similarly placed
students, we cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this
Court from time to time only for their benefit.
17. Under the circumstances, we find no ground has been
made out for granting relief to the petitioner. There is no
merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
However, we make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to
proceed against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh in
any appropriate manner.
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 9 of 10
Page 10
W.P. (C) No. 862 OF 2016
18. We find no reason to entertain this petition under Article
32 of the Constitution and it is accordingly dismissed.
19. In view of the order passed in the writ petition the
application for impleadment stands disposed of.
…………………………..J ( Madan B. Lokur )
New Delhi ………………………….J. January 23, 2017 ( Prafulla C. Pant )
W.P. (C ) Nos. 677 & 862 of 2016 Page 10 of 10