Medical
Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & Ors [2002] Insc
383 (11 September 2002)
Ruma
Pal & Arijit Pasayat. Arijit Pasayat, J.
This
appeal filed by the Medical Council of India (in short the 'MCI') raises
important questions regarding desirability of belated admissions to medical
colleges in different courses, both pre-graduate and post-graduate.
The
questions assume importance because filing a large number of petitions before
various High Courts and this Court has become an annual feature.
When
time of admission to medical courses arrives, immediately comes to mind Shakespeares'
Othello, where it was written "Chaos is come again".
Inevitable
result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires instead of
virus. This Court in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board and Ors. v. Chandan Mishra
and Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 77) observed as follows:
".........The
learned Judges of the High Court, if we may say so in a well-considered opinion
expressed their anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities administering
medical admission in the State to the need to prevent occasions for repetitive
grievances from the student community and had occasion to observe:
"Shakespeare
in Othello has written "Chaos is come again". This Court has
witnessed chaos almost annually when time for admission to MBBS/BDS courses
came...." Factual position leading to the appeal, which is almost
undisputed, needs to be noted in some detail.
For
admission into the MBBS course relating to the session 1997-98, combined
entrance competitive examination was held in the State of Bihar on 3.8.1997. The examination was
conducted by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (in
short the 'Board'). A combined merit list for the MBBS course and BDS course
was published on 7.10.1997 for the aforesaid session. Respondent No.1 was one
of the candidates who appeared at the said examination. She was, however, not
selected for the MBBS course, but she was given option to join the Dental
Course. She accepted the option given and she was admitted. Her serial number
was 4 in the general category. After the first counseling which was held
between the period 26.12.1997 to 31.12.1997, certain seats fell vacant.
The
Board decided not to fill up such vacancies, which primarily occurred on
account of selected candidates abandoning the course or not taking admission.
According to the Board, the approach was necessary to maintain the academic
calendar and prevent mid-stream admissions. The admissions for the session
1997-98 were completed by the end of January 1998. Two students who were
admitted to the Dental Course like respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition before
the High Court of Judicature at Patna (CWJC No. 5590/98), inter alia, praying for a direction to the
Controller of Examination to admit them against the vacant seats in MBBS
course. The petition was filed on the ground that second counseling was not
done and seats were lying vacant after the first counseling. By order dated
4.12.1998, the Patna High Court directed the Controller of Examination to admit
the writ petitioners as per the merit list and as per their choice against the
four vacancies existing due to non-joining of students, within a period of
fortnight from the date of the order. Five more students filed a Writ Petition (CWJC
No.11681/98) making identical prayers as were made in the other writ petition.
By order dated 10.3.1999, the High Court directed that all the vacant seats upto
4.12.1998 for the session 1997-98 should be filled up from amongst the eligible
candidates as enlisted in the merit list.
In
Letters Patent Appeal (LPA.439/99) filed by the Controller of Examination, a
Division Bench upheld the order dated 10.3.1999. However, certain modifications
were made in the directions. It was observed that if any objection was taken by
the MCI to the admissions in MBBS course, such decision should be given binding
effect.
It is
of relevance to note that the MCI was not a party in the aforesaid writ
applications and LPA. The Controller of Examination vide its letter dated 6.8.1999
communicated the directions and intimated the factual position regarding
admission of students against "stray vacancies" for the 1997-98
session to MCI. A clarification application was filed in the LPA.
By
order dated 30.8.1999 it was observed by the High Court that if any direction
is issued by the MCI, the parties will be at liberty to seek appropriate
remedy.
The
Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on 14.9.1999 refused
permission to students in respect of vacant seats of 1997- 98 session after 18
months as that would amount to increasing the intake capacity and would be
contrary to the provisions of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (in short
the 'Act'). By letter dated 22.10.1999, the decision of the Executive Committee
was communicated to the Board.
The
Controller of Examination of the Board cancelled the admissions of four
students (including the respondent No.1) who had got admission.
They
were shifted back to the BDS course to which they were originally admitted.
Aggrieved
by the decision of the Board, which was taken pursuant to MCI's decision,
respondent No.1 filed a Writ Application (CWJC No.11100/99) challenging the
jurisdiction of MCI under the Act to guide the admission in the colleges. For
the first time, MCI was impleaded in the proceedings. It was, inter alia,
pleaded by the writ petitioner that MCI had no power and authority in deciding
the question of admission of the students. Counter-affidavit was filed by MCI
taking the stand that mid- stream admissions would amount to increasing
admission capacity which was fixed and that was not permissible. Originally,
the matter was listed before a learned Single Judge. Since the earlier order
dated 22.9.1999 was passed by a Division Bench in LPA, it was directed that the
writ petition should be placed before a Division Bench. By impugned order dated
12.5.2000, writ application was allowed by the Division Bench primarily on the
ground that the vacancies remained unfilled due to lapse on the part of the
Controller of Examination or MCI and since earlier directions were given to
admit the students, the order was to be operative. It was directed that the
respondent No.1 should be allowed to complete the MBBS course to which she was
admitted as per the directions given in the earlier order.
Stand
of MCI in this appeal essentially is that the directions given by the High
Court are contrary to the scheme of the Act. It would mean that a candidate
would be permitted to take admission into a course of a fixed duration just
before completion thereof. In reality, the candidate would be pursuing the
course with the students of subsequent academic session, and essentially it
means increase in the students' strength beyond the prescribed maximum when
there is a statutory bar on the increase of the students intake capacity.
Directions cannot be given to act contrary to what is statutorily prescribed.
It is pointed out that directions for mid-stream admissions have been dis-approved
by this Court on several occasions. It was submitted that by admitting students
mid-stream, the statutorily prescribed time schedules get affected and it is
neither fair to the students getting admission nor the institution. At this
juncture, it is to be noted that while issuing notice in this case while
granting leave, it was made clear that whatever be the result of the petition,
the admission of the first respondent will not be adversely affected. Learned
counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, submitted that the result of the appeal
would not affect his client. However, his submission was that there was nothing
wrong in mid-stream admissions and even if there was fixed time schedule, extra
classes can be taken by the teachers to meet the deficiency in attendance. It
was further submitted that leaving seats unfilled is not good for the country
as eligible candidates would be deprived of pursuing the medical studies and it
will be a loss to the national exchequer.
In
order to appreciate the rival stands, it is desirable to take note of few
provisions of the Act and Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997 (in short the 'Regulation').
"Regulation
7(1)- Every student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 4
academic years divided into 9 semesters, (i.e. of 6 months each) from the date
of commencement of his study for the subjects comprising the medical curriculum
to the date of completion of examination and followed by one year compulsory
rotating internship. Each semester will consist of approximately 120 teaching
days of 8 hours each college working time, including one hour of lunch.
7(6)
Universities shall organize admission timings and admission process in such a
way that teaching in first semester starts by 1st of August each year.
Section
10A - Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study,
etc.
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time
being in force,-
(a) no
person shall establish a medical college; or
(b) no
medical college shall-
(i)
open a new or higher course of study or training ( including a post- graduate
course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or
training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical
qualification; or
(ii) increase
its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a
post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission
of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
Explanation
1- For the purposes
of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does
not include the Central Government.
(2)
(a)- Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining
permission under sub- section (1), submit to the Central Government a scheme in
accordance with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Government shall
refer the scheme to the Council for its recommendations.
(b)
The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such
particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as
may be prescribed.
10(B)-
Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases:
(1)
Where any medical college is established except with the previous permission of
the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10A, no
medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall be a
recognized medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(2)
Where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training (including
a post-graduate course of student or training) except with the previous
permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of
section 10A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical
college on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognized medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(3)
Where any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course of
study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government
in accordance with the provisions of section 10A, no medical qualification
granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in
its admission capacity shall be a recognized medical qualification for the
purposes of this Act.
Explanation
For the purposes of this section, the criteria for identifying a student who
has been granted a medical qualification on the basis of such increase in the
admission capacity shall be such as may be prescribed.
Section
19- Withdrawal of recognition- (1) When upon report by the Committee or the
visitor, it appears to the Council- (a) that the course of study and
examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at
any examination, held by, any University or medical institution, or (b) that
the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for
instruction and training provided in such University or medical institution or
in any college or other institution affiliated to that University, do not
conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a
representation to that effect to the Central Government.
(2)
After considering such representation, the Central Government may send it to
the State Government of the State in which the University or medical
institution is situated and the State Government shall forward it along with
such remarks as it may choose to make to the University or medical institution,
with an intimation of the period within which the University or medical
institution may submit its explanation to the State Government.
(3) On
the receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the
period fixed, then on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall
make its recommendations to the Central Government.
(4)
The Central Government, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may
think fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that an entry
shall be made in the appropriate Schedule against the said medical
qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification
only when granted before a specified date (or that the said medical
qualification if granted to students of a specified college institution
affiliated to any University shall be a recognized medical qualification only
when granted before a specified date, or, as the case may be, that the said
medical qualification shall be a recognized medical qualification in relation
to a specified college or institution affiliated to any University only when
granted after a specified date.
(Underlined
for emphasis) It is important to note that in respect of certain subjects, the
total time for teaching is also fixed. For example, for bio-physics the time
schedule is as follows:
(a)
Goal and objectives: The broad goal of teaching Biophysics to undergraduate
students is that they should understand basic physical principles involved in
the functioning of body organs in normal and diseased conditions.
Total
time for teaching Biophysics 5 hours Out of which: 1. Didactic lectures 3 hours
2.Tutorial/Group discussion 1 hour
3.
Practical 1 hour It may also be noted that under the Medical Council of India
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (in short the 'Establishment
Regulations') certain qualifying criteria have been prescribed. Regulation 2(7)
reads as follows:
"Regulation
2(7)- that the person provides two performance bank guarantees from a Scheduled
Commercial Bank valid for a period of five years, in favour of the Medical
Council of India, New Delhi, one for a sum of rupees one hundred lakhs (for 50
admissions), rupees one hundred and fifty lakhs (for 100 admissions) and rupees
two hundred lakhs (for 150 annual admissions) for the establishment of the
medical college and its infrastructural facilities and the second bank
guarantee for a sum of rupees 350 lakhs (for 400 beds), rupees 550 lakhs (for
500 beds) and rupees 750 lakhs (for 750 beds) respectively for the
establishment of the teaching hospital and its infrastructural facilities:
Provided
that the above conditions shall not apply to the persons who are State
Governments/Union Territories if they give an undertaking to provide funds in
their plan budget regularly till the requisite facilities are fully provided as
per the time bound programme.
(underlined
for emphasis) Part II of Regulation 3 deals with educational programme and
sub-parts 4 and 5 read as follows:
(4)
Educational programme (a) proposed annual intake of students (b) admission
criteria (c) method of admission (d) reservation/preferential allocation of
seats (e) department-wise and year-wise curriculum of studies.
(5)
Education programme - (a) department-wise and service-wise functional
requirements, and (b) area distribution and room-wise seating capability.
(underlined
for emphasis) Regulation 7 deals with Report of the MCI which reads as follows:
"Regulation
7(a)- After examining the application and after conducting necessary physical
inspections, the Medical Council shall send to the Central Government a factual
report stating - (1) That the applicant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying
criteria.
(2)
That the person has a feasible and time bound programme to set up the proposed
medical college along with required infrastructural facilities including
adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls, and as prescribed by
the Council, commensurate with the proposed intake of students, so as to
complete the medical college within a period of four years from the date of
grant of permission.
(3)
That the person has a feasible and time bound expansion programme to provide
additional beds and infrastructural facilities, as prescribed by the Medical
Council of India, by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of
establishment of new hospital or both and further that the existing hospital
has adequate clinical material for starting 1st year course.
(4)
That the person has the necessary managerial and financial capabilities to
establish and maintain the proposed medical college and its ancillary
facilities including a teaching hospital.
(5)
That the applicant has a feasible and time bound programme for recruitment of
faculty and staff as per prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary
posts stand created.
(6)
That the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year as per MCI norms.
(7)
That the applicant has not admitted any students.
(8)
Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out
indicating whether these are remediable or not.
(b)
The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of Intent should be issued and
if so, the number of seats per academic year should also be recommended. The
Council shall recommend a time bound programme for the establishment of the
medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. This recommendation
will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met
in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied
equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of students. The
recommendation will also define annual targets to be achieved by the person to
commensurate with the intake of students during the following years.
(c)
Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Letter of Intent, it shall
furnish to the Central Government-
(i) its
reasons for not granting the Central Government permission;
(ii)
documents/facts on the basis of which the Council recommends the disapproval of
the scheme.
(d)
The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form-4.
(underlined
for emphasis) So far as Regulations are concerned, the highlighted aspects are
relevant for deciding the question as to the desirability of fixing a time
limit for admission and stop any admission thereafter. For the MBBS course as
noted above, the total duration is 4 years of 9 semesters.
Section
10-A, Explanation 2 defines 'admission capacity' which reads as follows:
"Explanation
2- For the purposes of this section, 'admission capacity' in relation to any
course of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or
training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may
be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or
training." As the definition of "admission capacity" shows it is
the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to
time for being admitted to the course and training. By carrying forward the
unfilled seats from one year to the subsequent year, there is necessarily
increase in the number of seats i.e. admission capacity. Section 10-B frowns
upon such admissions beyond the prescribed limit. In fact, there is a
possibility of de- recognition under Section 19.
At
this juncture, few decisions of this Court dealing with somewhat similar
situations need to be noted.
In Dr.
Indu Kant etc.etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 Supp (2) SCC 71), it was
observed as follows:
"We
have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances
of the case. We have already held that the rule laying down the minimum
percentage of marks in the entrance examination is valid and no direction can
be given to the State Government to fill up any vacant seats by the candidates
securing less than the minimum qualifying marks. We had of course, made a
recommendation to the State Government in respect of the vacant seats of
post-graduate courses for 1992, but we find no valid justification to make such
recommendation in respect of the candidates of the earlier years of 1990 or
1991. The candidates who had not secured the minimum qualifying marks in the
years 1990 or 1991 had an opportunity to appear in the entrance examination of
1992 and to make up the deficiency. We find justification in the difficulties
pointed out by the State Government in doing so. Granting admission to the
candidates of 1990 and 1991 batch now and to allow them to join with the batch
of 1992 is bound to increase the total strength of post-graduate students in
1992. This would not only be in violation of the directions of the Medical
Council of India, but would also put an additional financial burden on the
State Government. In any case, the State Government itself is vehemently
opposing such request made on behalf of the candidates of 1990 and 1991 and we
cannot give any direction to the State Government in this regard." (underlined
for emphasis) The concept of counseling was noted by this Court in Sharwan
Kumar etc.etc v. Director General of Health Services and Anr. (1993 (3) SCC
332).
A
scheme was formulated so that there would be no difficulty in admitting
students at the appropriate time. In that case, an outer limit of 30th
September was fixed for 15% of all India quota.
In Dr.
Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 supp. (1) SCC 593), it was
observed that in respect of a technical course, to admit a student four months
after the commencement would not at all be correct.
In
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta and Ors. (1993 Supp (1) SCC
594), the view in Dr. Subodh's case (supra) was re- iterated. It was observed
as under:
"It
is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad that the courses were started from
October 30, 1990 and in terms of the orders of this Court it shall be deemed to
have been commenced from May 2, 1990, the direction as given in the impugned
judgments for admission after more than a year, is illegal. To maintain
excellence in the academic courses, the delay defeats the claim for admission,
though posts are vacant. In Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India
(1991 (2) SCC 179) this Court held that the course for the year 1991 is almost
completed and it would not be proper to allow admission belatedly.
In Dr.
Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. there was
a delay of four months in giving admission, and this Court held that,
"even according to Mr. Pandey the course has started in September for the
session.
This
is technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement
would not at all be correct." (underlined for emphasis) In para 14, the
desirability of commencing the course on schedule and completing the same
within the schedule was stressed in the following words:
"Considering
from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be
commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule so that the students
would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and
come at par excellence. Admission in the mid- stream would disturb the courses
and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence.
Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion
that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission
and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats
cannot be sustained." (underlined for emphasis) In State of Punjab and
Ors. v. Renuka Singla and Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 175), this Court disapproved the
course adopted by several High Courts directing students to be admitted much
after the course had commenced.
Though
that case was for admissions under the Dentists Act, 1948 (in short the
'Dentists Act'), identical provisions were under consideration. In para 8, it
was noted as under:
"The
admission in medical course throughout India is governed by different statutory
provisions, including regulations framed under different Acts.
During
last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the
different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But,
at the same time, a counter- attempt is also apparent and discernible, by which
the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by
different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final
directions are given to admit such petitioners.
We
fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or
liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the
authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in
respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that technical
education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with
the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted.
Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of
the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or
Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance between the
capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on "compassionate
ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this
process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been
admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination.
According to us, there does not appear to be any justification on the part of
the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent 1 on
"compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat to create an additional
seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10-A and Section 10-B(3)
of the Dentists Act referred to above.
(underlined
for emphasis) In Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1998
(6) SCC 131), action of the State Government in increasing number of seats was
held to be illegal. In paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment, it was held as
under:
"The
State Acts, namely, the Karnataka Universities Act and the Karnataka Capitation
Fee Act must give way to the Central Act, namely, the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956. The Karnataka Capitation Fee Act was enacted for the sole purpose of
regulation in collection of capitation fee by colleges and for that, the State
Government is empowered to fix the maximum number of students that can be
admitted but that number cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical
Council as per the regulations. Chapter IX of the Karnataka Universities Act,
which contains provision for affiliation of colleges and recognition of
institutions, applies to all types of colleges and not necessarily to
professional colleges like medical colleges. Sub-section (10) of Section 53,
falling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for maximum number of students to
be admitted to courses for studies in a college and that number shall not
exceed the intake fixed by the university or the Government. But this provision
has again to be read subject to the intake fixed by the Medical Council under
its regulations. It is the Medical Council which is primarily responsible for
fixing standards of medical education and overseeing that these standards are
maintained. It is the Medical Council which is the principal body to lay down
conditions for recognition of medical colleges which would include the fixing
of intake for admission to a medical college. We have already seen in the
beginning of this judgment various provisions of the Medical Council Act. It
is, therefore, the Medical Council which in effect grants recognition and also
withdraws the same.
Regulations
under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, which were made in 1977, prescribe
the accommodation in the college and its associated teaching hospitals and
teaching and technical staff and equipment in various departments in the
college and in the hospitals.
These
regulations are in considerable detail.
Teacher-student
ratio prescribed is 1 to 10, exclusive of the Professor or Head of the
Department. Regulations further prescribe, apart from other things, that the
number of teaching beds in the attached hospitals will have to be in the ratio
of 7 beds per student admitted. Regulations of the Medical Council, which were
approved by the Central Government in 1971, provide for the qualification
requirements for appointments of persons to the posts of teachers and visiting
physicians/surgeons of medical colleges and attached hospitals.
A
medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper
facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it
has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be
competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the
science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The
country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical
colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not
exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study.
The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the
admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any
action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the
regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the
number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of
Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council
has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which
were published in the Gazette of India dated 29.9.1993 (though the notification
is dated 20.9.1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to
increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including
diploma/degree/higher specialities), has to apply to the Central Government for
permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the
university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations
framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is
recognized by the Medical Council can so apply." (underlined for emphasis)
As
regards the desirability of commencement and completion of the course according
to a fixed schedule, this Court's observations in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors. (1987 (4) SCC 122) are
relevant. In para 6, it was observed that "in all medical
colleges/institutions to which the scheme applies teaching for MBBS or BDS
course should start on the first working day of September and even those
institutions which are outside the scheme might as well commence their academic
sessions from September so that throughout the country there would be
uniformity in that regard." Similar directions were given for the post-graduate
course. The directions were slightly modified in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors. (1987 (4) SCC 459) and the
announcement for holding the examination in 1988 was directed to be made on 1st October, 1987.
It is
to be noted that if any student is admitted after commencement of the course it
would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule.
In
fact, as the factual positions go to show, the inevitable result is increase in
the number of seats for the next session to accommodate the students who are
admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session.
Though,
it was pleaded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that with the object of
preventing loss of national exchequer such admissions should be permitted, we
are of the view that same cannot be a ground to permit mid- stream admissions
which would be against the spirit of governing statutes.
His
suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. The time
schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to
study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and
the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling requisite number
of days would be harmful to be students' physical and metal capacity to study.
In fact such a suggestion was held to be grossly inappropriate in Dr. Dinesh
Kumar's case (supra). In paragraph 15, it was observed as under:
"The
next question is as to when should the examination be held. Learned counsel for
the Union of India as also the Indian Medical Council suggested that it could
be done in October this year so that the candidates selected at the entrance
examination could join the 1987-88 session from November. In most of the
colleges, admission in respect of 85 per cent seats has been completed and
actual teaching has either begun or is about to begin. By November a
substantial part of the course would have been read. To meet the situation,
learned counsel for the Union of India suggested that we should direct the
colleges and institutions to have a supplementary course for the students
admitted against the 15 per cent vacancies.
In the
absence of consent from the institutions, it would be difficult to work out
that. As it is, there exists a lot of confusion in the field and we do not
propose to add to it by giving a direction of the type proposed. On the other
hand it would be appropriate to bring the scheme into operation from the coming
year so that all the preliminaries can be properly conducted and in regular
course the students can seek admission to the 1988-89 session. We accordingly
direct the authorities to hold the examination in the manner directed, in June
(sic May) 1988. The Union of India, the Medical Council the Dental Council, the
several States, Universities and Medical Colleges or institutions who are covered by
the scheme are directed to comply with these orders in time so as to give full
effect to what has been said here." (underlined for emphasis) There is,
however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the
course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it
clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which
essentially should be the date for commencement of the course.
In
conclusion:
(i) there
is no scope for admitting students mid-tream as that would be against very
spirit of statutes governing the medical education;
(ii) even
if, seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid session admissions;
(iii) there
cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the
subsequent year;
(iv)
the MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying
the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the
last date for admission;
(v) different
modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of
examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have to be completed within
the specified time;
(vi) no
variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed;
(vii) in
case of any deviation by the concerned institution, action as prescribed shall
be taken by the MCI.
The
High Court was obviously in error in directing mid-session admission. The impugned
order is, therefore, set aside. But as was earlier directed by this Court, the
admission of respondent No.1 would not be affected by allowing the appeal.
Back
