Priya Gupta Vs State
of Chhatishgarh & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No.
4318 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011]
[Civil Appeal No.
4319 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011]
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
The
Department of Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide its
letter dated 10th September, 2010 cancelled the admission granted to Akansha
Adile and Priya Gupta in the MBBS course for the academic year 2006-07 in the
Government NMDC Medical College, Jagdalpur (for short, the Jagdalpur College)
with immediate effect.
3.
Aggrieved
by this order of the Government, both the students challenged the legality and
correctness of this action in separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 9th August, 2011, held that admission
to these petitioners had been given ignoring more meritorious and suitable candidates,
which amounted to violation of natural justice to such other candidates and
declined to interfere in the impugned order dated 10thSeptember 2010, hence
giving rise to the present appeals.
The appellants had
appeared in the Pre-Medical Test conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for the
academic year 2006. The results were declared in July 2006 and Appellant No.1,
Priya Gupta, secured general rank 1614 while AppellantNo. 2, Akansha Adile,
secured general rank 3893. As the latter belonged to the Scheduled Caste
category, her rank in that category was 396. This entrance exam was conducted
by the State as per the notification of the State Government dated 8th March,
2006 under the ‘Chhattishgarh Medical and Dental Graduate Examination Rules,
2006’ (Chhatisgarh Chikitsha Tatha Dant Chikitsha Snatak Pravesh Pariksha
Niyam, 2006) (for short, ‘the Rules’).These Rules provided for allocation of
seats and reservation, the process for admission to the vacant seats, selection
procedure as well as cancellation of admission and the matters incidental
thereto.
4.
The
State Government, vide its letter dated 14th August, 2006, had granted
permission for the starting of admission procedure for the academic year
2006-07 at the Jagdalpur College. The annual admission capacity was50 seats
which were to be filled up by the candidates who had qualified PMT2006 in the
order of their merit.
5.
The
first counseling was held on 21-22nd July, 2006 but obviously, at that time,
the Jagdalpur College had not been given permission to commence admission to
the MBBS course. The counseling was conducted for medical colleges at Raipur
and Bilaspur and also for the Raipur Dental College. 18per cent of seats were
to be reserved for allotment under the All India Quota and the Central Pool quota.
However, the State Government vide letter dated 21st August, 2006 is stated to have
informed the Jagdalpur College that two seats out of the total seats were reserved
for allotment under the Central Pool Quota and no seats were reserved under All
India Quota. Upon receipt of recognition, only 48 seats were offered for admission
to the students on 22nd – 23rd August, 2006.
The Central Pool Quota
seats were not filled up and were allegedly not made available to the candidates
who appeared for that counseling. The Dean of Jagdalpur College informed the
Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh on 30thSeptember, 2006 that
on that date, 48 candidates had taken admission and two seats were lying
vacant. This information was sent in response to inquiry by the Director,
Medical Education in this regard and directions were sought by the Jagdalpur
College for filling up of vacant seats. On the same day, the Director, Medical Education,
directed that the seats should be filled from the merit list and the candidates
could be contacted on telephone. If contact was not possible, admission could
be given to the candidates who were available in the Jagdalpur College. On 30th
September,2006 itself, the two vacant seats were given to the available candidates,
who are the appellants herein.
6.
As
already noticed, the Jagdalpur College was granted permission for starting the
academic procedure for the session 2006-2007 by the Government of Chhattisgarh.
This letter reads as under:- “Consequent to the letter No.
U.12012/206/2005/M.E.(P.II) dated 15th July, 2006 of the Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of India, the State Government hereby grants permission
for starting admission procedure for the academic session 2006-07 in the
Government Medical College, Jagdalpur. 2. The annual admission capacity of the
said Medical College would be 50 seats and the candidates qualified in P.M.T. 2006
would be given admission on the basis of merit. Necessary action be ensured as
per the aforesaid.
7.
”
48 students under different categories were given admission as per the list
published by the Jagdalpur College on 30th September, 2006. Vide letter dated
30th September, 2006, the Jagdalpur College and other medical colleges in the
State had been informed by the Directorate of Medical Education, State of
Chhatisgarh that 30th September, 2006 being the last date for admission as per
the judgment of the Supreme Court, a list of the students who had been given
admission may be sent to the Directorate and guidance sought from the
Directorate, if any seats were lying vacant.
The guidance was received
by the Jagdalpur College by letter dated 30thSeptember, 2006, which reads as
under :- “On the above subject, information about 2 vacant seats has been given
by you. In order to fill these up contact the candidates over telephone. If contact
could not be established with any candidate then fill up the vacant seats from
amongst the candidates available in the college according to merit.
8.
”
On that very date, inter alia, an order was issued by the Dean of Jagdalpur College
constituting a Committee to give admission to the available candidates in
accordance with merit of the PMT. This letterre ads as under:- “As per the
directions received from the Directorate of Medical Education, the vacant seats
are to be filled from the available candidates according to the merit in P.M.T.
For this purpose, Counseling Committee is constituted as follows:- 1. Dr. M.S.
Banjari, Assistant Vice Principal 2. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Assistant Vice Principal
3. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Demonstrator The aforesaid Committee after examining
the certificates etc. of the available candidates recommend for admission on
the basis of merit.
9.
”
The Dean of the Jagdalpur College was further informed by the Committee, on
30th September, 2006 itself, that only two candidates, i.e., the appellants
were available and they were given admission to the vacant seats. This letter
reads as under:- “In compliance of your letter No. 233/GAMC/06 Jagdalpur, dated
20.9.2006 the certificates etc. of the candidates available on today’s date have
been examined. Only the following two candidates, who were present have been
found to be eligible to be given admission – 1. Ku. Priya Gupta Merit No. UR
1614 2. Ku. Akanksha Adile Merit No. SC 396 /3893 Prescribed fees have been got
deposited from the aforesaid candidates. They can be given admission against the
vacant seats.
10.
”Having
granted admission to these two appellants, the Dean of the Jagdalpur College
informed the Director, Medical Education as follows:- “With reference to the
above, it is submitted that according to the directions given by you in the
letter under reference the following two candidates, present on 30.9.2006, have
been given admission in the 2 seats remained vacant in this college. 1. Ku.
Priya Gupta Merit No. UR 1614 2. Ku. Akanksha Adile Merit No. SC 396/3893 It is
further submitted that the admission procedure for all the 50 seats of this
college has been completed.
11.
”11.
As is evident from the above letters, all the events had taken place on 30th
September, 2006 itself. Appellant No.2, Akansha Adile is stated to be daughter of
the Director, Medical Education Government of Chhattisgarh, one Dr. S.L. Adile,
who is supposed to be the high estauthority in the State directly responsible
for admission to the medical colleges, including Jagdalpur College. The appellants
were given admission and they joined the course of MBBS.
12.
The
State of Chhattisgarh, vide notification No. F-16-1/2001/75/55dated 8th March,
2006 had framed the Rules. Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of these Rules it had
been specifically prescribed that in all Government Medical and Dental
Colleges, there will be a reservation of 15 per cent of seats under All India
quota and these seats will be filled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination.
Further, under sub-rule (2), it was specified that in the said colleges, there
shall be a prescribed quota of 3per cent reserved for admissions from the Central
Pool, which would be filled from the names nominated by the
concerned/authorised officer.
13.
It
emerges from the record that a Right to Information application was filed
before the Directorate General of Medical Services, Medical Examination Cell,
New Delhi by one Dr. Anil Khakhariya. The Assistant Director General, ME,
Government of India, had forwarded the complaint to the State Government and the
Jagdalpur College, and vide letter dated 13thSeptember, 2009 informed Dr. Anil Khakhariya
that an inquiry committe e consisting of three members had been constituted by the
Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh to examine whether the admission
of the two candidates, namely Akansha Adile and Priya Gupta, was valid or not. The
Committee submitted its Report with the following findings:- “A. No Admission
was granted to any students in All India quota on the basis of letter of Director
General of Health Services (ME), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt.
Of India no. U-11011/1/2006-ME dated 08/08/2006. B. Two students namely Miss.
Akansha Adile & Miss Priya Gupta got admission in Medical College Jagdalpur
in 2006 by the state PMT merit on the last date of the admission i.e. 30/09/2006.
14.
”14.
The above inquiry report was submitted by the Dean of Jagdalpur College to the
Directorate. However, on 22nd July, 2010, the Secretary, Department of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh was informed by the Assistant
Director General (Medical Education), Government of India that the admission of
Akanksha and Priya had been on the basis of fake letters purported to be issued
from the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) and that their
admissions may be cancelled with immediate effect and action taken report be
submitted to the DGHS. In furtherance to this letter, the Deputy Secretary,
Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued an order
dated 10th September, 2010stating that the admission of these two appellants was
not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and other guidelines/provisions
with regard to allotment of seats under the All India Quota and the admission was
cancelled with immediate effect. As already noticed, this letter of cancellation
of admission was challenged by the appellants before the HighCourt.
15.
The
Assistant Director General, (Medical Education), New Delhi, has filed an
affidavit taking up the stand that the Central Board for Secondary Education,
New Delhi had been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct All India
Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Examinations, but allotment of seats would be
undertaken by the DGHS. The candidates equal to the number of seats available
for allotment, together with the wait-listed candidates are called for
counseling. The allotment of seats is made on merit and only two rounds of
counseling are permitted. In the counseling, the candidates have to appear in
person. In Chhattisgarh, the allotment of All India Quota seats in the Pt. JLN
Medical College, Raipur was made vide letter dated 8th August, 2006 on the
basis of vacancy position furnished by that college. The allotment of Akansha
Adile and Priya Gupta in the Jagdalpur College, was also allegedly made by the
same letter under 15 per cent All India Quota of 2006. However, the DGHS denies
making any allotment of seats to the appellants by such letter.
16.
Therefore,
according to the Union of India, it was a case of fake admission to the
Jagdalpur College, taken up in furtherance to a purported letter issued by the
answering respondents, which was now found fake. Vide letter dated 19th April,
2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of
Chhattisgarh had been requested to personally look into whether the allegations
made by Dr. Anil Khakharia under the Right to Information Act, as mentioned above,
were correct. Letters dated 6thAugust, 2010 and 24th August 2010 were also
exchanged between the parties. In response to the letter of the DGHS dated 6th August,
2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
vide letter dated 24th September, 2010, communicated the information that
admissions given to Akansha Adile and Priya Gutpa in the MBBS course for the
academic year 2006-07 were against the norms and the Rules and the admission
was cancelled immediately by the Department vide order dated 10th September,
2010. Further, it is the clear stand of the Union of India that the order dated
10th September, 2010 was passed in accordance with law and the judgment of the
High Court dismissing the writ petition does not call for any interference.
17.
The
petitioners have impugned the judgment of the High Court on the following
grounds:1) The order dated 10th September, 2010 has been passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice. Neither hearing nor copy of the inquiry report
was given to them prior to cancellation of admission.2) The report submitted by
the Inquiry Committee had specifically recorded a finding that the admission of
both the appellants was not granted in furtherance to the letter of the DGHS
dated 8th August, 2006 and that they had received admission in the Jagdalpur
College through the State PMT on the basis of merit on the last date of admission,
i.e. 30th September, 2006 and only upon recommendation of a duly constituted counseling
Committee. In face of these positive findings, the order of cancellation of
admission suffers from legal infirmity and as such, the judgment of the High
Court sustaining this order is in error of law.3) The Jagdalpur College was
granted permission to admit students by the Central Government vide its letter
dated 15th July, 2006 and by the Government of the State of Chhattisgarh only
on 14th August, 2006. Two seats had not been offered for admission in the
counseling held on 22nd -23rd August, 2006 and 48 seats were offered for admission.
The two remaining seats reverted from the Central Pool quota to the State Government
only on 30th September, 2006 which were then given to the appellants in
accordance with the Rules. Therefore, no fault is attributable to the
appellants.4) The petitioners have already pursued the MBBS course for a considerable
period and, in fact, have completed a major part of the course, having written
their final examination and thus, to cancel their admission at this stage would
be unjust and unfair. It will be inequitable to the petitioners to cancel their
admission at this stage and would cause them irreparable loss and damage,
besides wasting the seats and public money.5) The High Court judgment is also challenged
on the ground that no candidate entitled to admission has been denied admission
and also that no candidate has complained about or objected to the admission of
the appellants.
18.
It
deserves to be noticed that the stands taken by the Union of India and the
State of Chhattisgarh in the present petitions are not exactly the same. According
to the DGHS, Respondent No.2 herein, the letter dated 8thAugust, 2006 is fake
and no seats had been allotted to the Jagdalpur College. Seats were allotted
only to Pt. JLN Medical College, Raipur. The letter dated 8th August, 2006 is
alleged to have been sent by the Assistant Director General (ME), Ministry of
Health and Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Having found the letter to be
fake, the DGHS directed cancellation of the admission granted to both the
appellants. According to the State of Chhattisgarh, the State had to distribute
only 41 seats of the Jagdalpur College as 15 per cent were reserved for All
India quota and three per cent for Central Pool quota. It is their stand that
Dr. S.L. Adile, RespondentNo.3 is the father of Akanksha Adile and is the highest
officer in the State for controlling pre-medical education and post graduate admission.
Seats reserved, if any, would have reverted back on 23rd August, 2006 to Respondent
No.3 and no action was taken to fill up these seats at that time. Suspiciously,
the seats were filled only on 30th September, 2006, by giving the seats to the
appellants. They support the case of the Union of India that the letter dated
8th August, 2006 is fake and claim that the two seats were deliberately not
offered for the second round of counseling, which was held on 22nd-23rd August,
2006. All other candidates had been absent on 30th September, 2006 as they had
not been contacted. The entire admission process of the appellants was vitiated
by fraud.
19.
The
admission to MBBS and BDS courses, whether at State level or All India level
has ever been a matter of concern for the courts. Large number of writ
petitions are filed challenging the admission process or admission of some
particular candidates on varied grounds, like admission being contrary to
Rules, the principle of merit being disturbed, admissions being arbitrary, etc.
and there is still flagrant violation of the dicta of this Court, as issued in various
judgments, as well as of the Rules and Regulations wherever framed by the State
or Central Government or Medical or Dental Council of India. The present case
is one example of violation of procedure and admissions being arbitrary. Before
we examine the intricacies of procedural irregularities in the present case and
the arbitrary admission of the appellants, we must examine the background in which
admissions of the present kind are normally questioned before the courts of
competent jurisdiction.
20.
Admission
to professional colleges are governed by the judgment of this Court in the case
of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka& Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC
481]. The framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some detail by
this Court. However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 654], the concept of an All India quota came
to be introduced while determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such
admissions. Earlier, 30 percent of seats in the under-graduate courses were
reserved for this purpose, which came to be modified to 15 per cent seats for
All India quota in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru
College, Allahabad & Ors.[(1985) 3 SCC 22]. In the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar
& Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459],
this Court also passed directions in relation to the manner of notification/announcement
of details, results and counseling for admission, in that case, for postgraduate
admissions, which were to be published in two successive issues of news papers,
including one national paper in English and at least two local papers in the
language of the State. Declaration of results would be made four weeks after
the examination and academic courses were to mandatorily begin on the 2nd of
May every year. Again, in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar& Ors. v. Moti Lal
Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 627], as some of the States
were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court took punitive action against
the State of Uttar Pradesh and even contemplated action under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), this Court has always
directed that merital one must be the criteria for admission to MBBS courses. To
make such admissions more subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain
further directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc. v.
Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc. [(1993) 3 SCC 332].This
Court clarified that candidates who have been allotted a seat in the second
round of counseling will have to join the college within 15 days from the date
of their personal appearance and the whole allotment and admission process to
15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over before the 30th September of
each year, the remaining seats having been surrendered back to the
college/State. Various judgments of this Court have sought to carry forward, with
greater clarity, the fundamental requirement as stated in TMA Pai (supra) that
the admission process should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Every subsequent
judgment of this Court has attempted to elucidate one or other aspect of this principle.
Having noticed that there have been irregularities in maintaining the
prescribed schedule and that the last few days of the declared schedule are primarily
being utilized in an exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees for
securing admission and thereby defeating the principle of admission on merit, a
three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr.
v. Union of India & Ors.[(2005) 2 SCC 65] applied the schedule notified by
the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix ‘E’ of the Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment)Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. The said Schedul
ereads as under :
“APPENDIX
E
TIME
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE
|
Schedule
for admission
|
Seats
filled up by the Central Government through All-India Entrance Examination Month
of May
|
Seats
filled up by the State Governments/ institutions Month of May
|
|
Conduct
of entrance examination Declaration of result of qualifying exam/ entrance
exam First round of counseling/ admission Last date for joining the allotted
college and course Second round of counseling for allotment of seats from
waiting list
Last
date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counseling
from the waiting list
Commencement
of academic session
Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due
to any reason
|
By
5th June
To be
over by 30th June
Within
15 days from the date of allotment of seats To be over by 8th August
Within
15 days from the date of allotment of seat (seats vacant after 22nd August
will be surrendered back to the States/colleges)
|
By
15th June
To be
over by 25th July 31st July
Up to
28th August
31st
August
1st
of August
30th
September”
|
21.
The
Court noticed that the holding of 10+2 examination and declaration of results
is also of importance for the entire admission process and, therefore, directed
strict adherence to the Schedule in all respects and by all concerned. The date
of 30th September was stated not to be the date of normal admission but is to give
opportunity to grant admission against stray vacancies. The Court clarified that
adherence to the time schedule by everyone was a paramount concern. In that case,
the Court issued a specific direction to all the State functionaries, particularly
the Chief Secretaries and heads of the concerned Ministries/Departments participating
in the States/Union Territories, adopting the time schedule and holding the State
examination, to ensure declaration of results on or before 15th June, 2005. They
were also required to ensure the appropriate utilization of All India quota, to
fullest extent, by timely reporting to the DGHS by the Deans of various colleges
or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of the acceptance or rejection
of seats by the students after the first counseling of AllIndia/State Quota.
22.
Further,
this Court even took pains to declare the need for adherence to the schedule for
receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges or seats and
the process of the review and recommendation by the Central Government and the
Medical Council of India. In para 28 of the judgment, the Schedule under the
1999 Regulations are referred to, that reads as under :
“SCHEDULE
FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICALCOLLEGES AND
PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ANDTHE MEDICAL COUNCIL
OF INDIA
|
|
Stage
of processing
|
Last
date
|
|
1.
|
Receipt
of applications by the Central Government
|
From
1st August to 31st August (both days inclusive) of any year
|
|
2.
|
Receipt
of applications by MCI from the Central Government
|
30th
September
|
|
3.
|
Recommendations
of the Medical Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter
of intent
|
31st
December
|
|
4.
|
Issue
of letter of intent by the Central Government
|
31st
January
|
|
5.
|
Receipt
of reply from the applicant by the Central Government requesting for letter
of permission
|
28th
February
|
|
6.
|
Receipt
of letter from the Central Government by the Medical Council of India for
consideration for issue of letter of permission
|
15th
March
|
|
7.
|
Recommendations
of the Medical Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter
of permission
|
15th
June
|
|
8.
|
Issue
of letter of permission by the Central Government
|
15th
July
|
Note: (1) The
information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a
medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic
infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the applicant
shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of India through an inspection and
thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central
Government. (2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medical college
if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions
shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government.
23.
”
Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of
India & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 623], this Court cautioned all concerned that
the schedule specified in Mridul Dhar (supra) should be maintained and regulations
should be strictly followed. The Court suggested that the process of inspection
of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of permission should also be done
well in advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies pointed out.
24.
In
the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors.[(1990)
4 SCC 624], a Bench of this Court took exception to the non-adherence to the
time schedules and reiterated that the admissions to medical colleges and
post-graduate courses were governed by the orders of this Court and the
regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, which must be strictly
followed. This Court issued a warning, that if there was any violation in
future, the same shall be treated as default and viewed very seriously. Further,
in the case of Medical Council of India v.Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258],
this Court declared two very important principles. Firstly, it declared that mid-stream
admissions should not be permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of compassion
in review of such admissions, this Court also held that late or mid-stream admission,
even just four months after beginning of the classes, cannot bepermitted.
25.
A
consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the regulations framed by
the MCI are binding and these standards cannot be deviated from. Reference can
be made to State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D.Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7
SCC 83 – paras 24 and 26]; Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004) 11 SCC755 – para 20]; Chowdhury Navin
Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.[(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7,
11, 12, 14 and 18] and Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Ors.
[(2003) 8 SCC 69 – paras 14 to 21].
26.
What
is of greater significance is that this Court has not so far considered or
stated as a principle, what consequences should follow where the Central
Government, or the State Government or Medical Council of India or the College itself,
with impunity, violate the time schedule, regulations and order of merit to give
admission to students in an arbitrary and nepotistic manner. Also, we must consider
what preventive steps can be taken to avoid such repetitive and intentional defaults,
as well as undue exploitation of the class of students. Admissions based on favouritism
necessarily breach the rule of merit on the one hand, while on the other, they
create frustration in the minds of the students who have attained higher rank
in the competitive entrance examinations, but have not been admitted. We
propose to specifically address this concern in this judgment. From the above
discussion and reference to various judgments of this Court, it is clear that adherence
to the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed schedule, refraining from
mid-stream admissions and adoption of an admission process that is transparent,
non-exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme.
27.
Now,
let us examine the adverse consequences of non-adherence to the prescribed
schedules. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they
form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the
regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law
and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any
authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given
situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government
of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the
college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no
hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the
power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of
admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council
of India Regulations. Inter alia, the disadvantages are:-1) Delay and
unauthorized extension of schedules defeat the principle of admission on merit,
especially in relation to preferential choice of colleges and courses. Magnanimity
in this respect, by condoning delayed admission, need not be shown by the
Courts as it would clearly be at the cost of more meritorious students. The principle
of merit cannot be so blatantly compromised. This was also affirmed by this
Court in the case of Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
[(2005) 9 SCC 186].2) Mid-stream admissions are being permitted under the garb of
extended counseling or by extension of periods for admission which, again, is impermissible.3)
The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay in the commencement of courses
etc., encourage lowering of the standards of education in the Medical/Dental
Colleges by shortening the duration of the academic courses and promoting the chances
of arbitrary and less meritorious admissions.4) Inequities are created which
are prejudicial to the interests of the students and the colleges and more
importantly, affect the maintenance of prescribed standard of education. These inequities
arise because the candidates secure admission, with or without active connivance,
by the manipulation and arbitrary handling of the prescribed schedules, at the cost
of more meritorious candidates. When admissions are challenged, these students
would run the risk of losing their seats though they may have completed their
course while litigation was pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.5)
The highly competitive standards for admission to such colleges stand frustrated
because of non-adherence to the prescribed time schedules. The admissions are
stretched to the last date and then admissions are arbitrarily given by
adopting impermissible practices.6) Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/approved
colleges and seats deprives the students of their right of fair choice of
college/course, on the strength of their merit.7) Preference should be to fill
up all vacant seats, but under the garb that seats should not go waste, it would
be impermissible to give admissions in an arbitrary manner and without recourse
to the prescribed rule of merit.
28.
The
Medical and Dental Councils of India, the Governments and the Universities are
expected to act in tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition for
starting of the medical courses and grant of admission are strictly within the time
frame declared by this Court and the regulations. It has come to the notice of
this Court that despite warnings having been issued by this Court and despite
the observations made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to the time
schedules shall be viewed very seriously, matters have not improved. Persistent
defaults by different authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarily
and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this Court. In the case
of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355], the Court
observed that the process of counseling cannot go on continuously for a long
period and the resultant chain reaction should be checked. Some seats may have
to be left vacant per compulsion, but, the process of admission should stand the
test of rationality. There should be exceptional and fortuitous circumstances
to justify late admission. In the case of Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS
[(1994) 2 SCC 370], the Court was even compelled to issue notice of contempt to
the Director General of Health Services as to why proceedings under the Contempt
of Courts Act,1971 be not taken for non-compliance with the scheme framed by the
Court for consideration of applications for transfer of students between colleges
and they be not punished accordingly. The consistent effort of this Court to
direct corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being thwarted by
motivated action on the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also
been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have
resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time. This
Court, thus, now views this matter with greater emphasis on directions that should
be made to curb incidents of disobedience.
29.
The
maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere places an obligation upon the Court
to ensure that it resolves the causes of litigation in the country.
30.
Thus,
the need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and statutory
regulations be enforced, so that all concerned are mandatorily required to
implement the time schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult
and not even advisable to keep some windows open to meet a particular situation
of exception, as it may pose impediments to the smooth implementation of laws
and defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed
upon serious consideration by all concerned. They are to be applied stricto
sensu and cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some economic or other interest
of any institution, especially, in a manner that is bound to result in
compromise of the above-stated principles. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct
of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit compels us to
state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is necessary to ameliorate
the process of selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for
their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned,. i) The
commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of
MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July
of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. ii) The
Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate
directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process
within one week thereafter. iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union
of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition
or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted
after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic
year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is
granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college
and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in
accordance with the Rules. iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof,
to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective
year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the concerned
authority 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 of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling
should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of
Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third
counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of
selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. vii) If any seats
remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively
be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of
the relevant year and not by holding an extended counseling. The remaining time
will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional
circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic
courses by 30th September of the academic year.viii) No college may grant admissions
without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same
through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools
and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that
the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner
which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. ix) The
admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the
entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of
private colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th April of the
relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the
merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they
wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive
examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges.
The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice
should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition,
in compliance with the date specified in these directions.
31.
All
these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, ncluding 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. 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 counseling, the unfilled
seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the
respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit
obtained in the competitive entrance test. g) It shall be mandatory on the part
of each college and University to inform the State and the Central
Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each
counseling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled
and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counseling. h) No
college shall fill up its seats in any other manner.
32.
Having
dealt with, in general, the directions that this Court would issue to prevent the
evils of arbitrariness and discrimination from creeping into these
selection/admission processes, which are required to be transparent, fair and
non-exploitatory, we shall now proceed to deal with the facts of the present
case.
33.
The
present case is a glaring example of calculated tampering with the schedule
specified under the regulations and the judgments of this Court, with a clear intent
to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over and above the candidates
of higher merit. To put it simply, it is a case of favouritism and arbitrariness.
This also chronicles how, either way, the careers of the students are jeopardised.
The High Court had cancelled the admission of the appellants by a detailed and
well-reasoned judgment. However, as a result of interim orders granted by the Court,
both the appellants had already completed four years of the studies at the time
of the High Court decision. They are stated to have completed their final exam
now. Despite having lost their case before the High Court, the appellants
continued to pursue their professional courses because of the interim orders of
the Court. Now, the plea of inequities is being raised.
34.
From
the facts narrated above, it is clear that the admission relates to the
academic year 2006. The Central Government vide its letter dated15th July, 2006
had granted approval and leave to admit the students to the Jagdalpur College. Thereafter,
permission to commence admission was granted by the Governor of the State of
Chhattisgarh on 14th August, 2006.The name of Jagdalpur College was not in the brochure
published for admission. The first counseling was, in fact, conducted by 25th –
26thJuly, 2006 in which the College did not participate and the second counseling
was done on 22nd-23rd August, 2006.
35.
In
paragraph 2 of State Government’s approval letter, it was clearly stated that
the capacity of the Jagdalpur College would be 50 seats and the candidates
qualified in the PMT 2006 would be given admission on the basis of merit. After
issuance of this letter, the college was included in the second counseling and
as already noticed, it had allocated 48 out of the 50seats.
36.
On
8th August, 2006, a letter is stated to have been issued by the DGHS stating
that 15 per cent of the total seats reserved for All India Quota, 2006, if
remaining vacant, on or after 23rd August, 2006, may be treated as surrendered
to the State Quota. To this letter a statement of the same date was annexed,
which allegedly gave two seats from the All India Quota to the present
appellants. As per that statement, the seats were allocated on 8th August,
2006. From the record before us, it is clear that between 14th August, 2006 and
30th September, 2006, no correspondence was exchanged between the parties. This
is despite the fact that the Government of India had required the college and
the State Authorities to inform them of the details of the admissions given to
the students as well as the details of the Quota seats, if the seats were vacant.
All India Quota seats, which had not been filled till 22nd August, 2006 would be
surrendered in favour of the State. Strangely, nothing has been placed on record
to show that any of the concerned State authorities, including the college, adhered
to the requirement of informing the DGHS or other authorities with regard to
the status of admissions. On 30th September,2006, the Director, Medical
Education, Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to the Dean of the College, requiring
that the Jagdalpur College provide the up-to-date list of the students admitted
to it and if there were any seats remaining vacant, guidance was to be taken from
the Directorate of the State Government.
37.
Another
letter written by the Director, Medical Education, to the Dean of the Jagdalpur
College and referring to their letter of the same date, which stated that two
seats were vacant, in turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and the
candidates be contacted over telephone. If contact could not be established
with any candidate, then the Jagdalpur College was directed to fill up the
seats with the candidates physically present and available at the Jagdalpur
College, according to merit. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College, on that very
day, constituted a Committee of Asst. Vice-Principals and Demonstrator of the
Jagdalpur College to examine the certificates etc. of the available candidates
and recommend the names on the basis of merit. Again, on that very day, the Committee
recommended the names of the two appellants, declaring them to be eligible for getting
admissions. More strangely, the Committee also notes that the fees from the
candidates had been deposited and they could be given admission. Then, vide
another letter dated 30th September, 2006, the Dean of the College informed the
Director, Medical Education that the two appellants have been given admission
and the admission process for 50 seats had been completed. We must notice that
there is nothing placed on the records of the Court as to what steps were taken
by the Jagdalpur College to inform all the other candidates of counseling on
the last date. Also strange was the direction of the Directorate that the
candidates should be informed on telephone. Even if this direction was of some
content and meaning, there is still no material to show how many candidates were
actually informed on the telephone that there would be counseling for two seats.
Thus, the questions remain open, as to the reason for total abandonment of the procedure
of informing all eligible candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats were
available for admissions, who all had actually appeared for the counseling, how
only two candidates who even according to the State Government were not
contacted on telephone, were alone present before the Committee and immediately
found to be eligible for admission. This entire exercise smacks of arbitrariness,
unfairness and is discriminatory exfacie. It is brought to our notice and is
clear from the record that the Respondent No.3, the Director of the Medical
Education in Chhattisgarh, is the father of Akansha Adile, Appellant no.2 and
that speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted to the two
appellants.
38.
The
methodology adopted and the manner in which admissions were given to the
present appellants leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that this process
was neither fair nor transparent. In fact, within a few hours, the entire
process of admission was completed, indicating that the whole exercise was
undertaken only with the object of granting admission to the appellants, that
too, as if no other candidates of merit were available for these two seats. This
view is entirely substantiated by the records produced before us. The
prescribed procedure for grant of admission was given a go by and the rule of
admission on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such admission process.
One fails to understand why no preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant
seats were taken by any of the competent authorities involved in the entire
process of selection and admission to MBBS courses. The students who had undertaken
the PMT examination had been allocated seats in the college on 23rd August, 2006.Not
even a single document has been placed on record of this Court from23rd August,
2006 to 29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant seats. Everybody
waits for the last date which, in fact, is the date for joining the courses and
not admission, where after the entire machinery in the Centre, State Government
and the college acts so swiftly that with in hours, the entire admission
process is concluded to grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty
of fairness and transparency that for 50seats in the Jagdalpur College, the
Directorate as well as the Committeee constituted for counseling/selection could
find only the candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614 suitable, completely
ignoring all the candidates being higher in merit than these two appellants,
who must also be waiting for admission to the MBBS course. Strangely, the merit
ranks of these two appellants, as given in the letter of the DGHS dated 8th
August, 2006 were2196 and 2203 respectively. From whatever angle this case is examined,
only one conclusion is possible and that is, that the allocation of seats was
totally arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid down. We also would like
to make a clear mention of the displeasure of this Court to the three members of
the Selection Committee who found only these two candidates eligible and fit to
be granted admission to the MBBS courses on the last day for admissions. To say
the least, this Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure
of admission and certainly contrary to the judgments of this Court. We direct the
Dean of the Jagdalpur College to convey the displeasure of this Court to the members
of the Selection Committee and the same be placed on their respective service
records.
39.
Now,
we may come to the inquiry that was conducted by a three member committee and
which recorded the finding that we have already noticed in paragraph 13 of the
judgment. This inquiry was initiated in furtherance to an application made
under the Right to Information Act, regarding the letter dated 8th August, 2006
according to which the admission in the Jagdalpur College, particularly to
these two appellants, was made in an arbitrary and unfair manner. The stand of
the Union of India before this Court is that the letter dated 8th August, 2006 was
never issued by the DGHS and is a fabricated document. In face of that stand,
we are unable to appreciate as to how the Inquiry Committee returned a finding that
the admission to the two appellants was not given in furtherance to the letter dated
8th August, 2006, but validly granted on 30th September, 2006instead. They were
expected to examine this matter in greater depth and record proper findings. We
also cannot understand as to how they have recorded that both the appellants
got admission in the Jagdalpur College by State PMT merit. Their report does
not even mention if they had verified the fact that notices had been issued to
all the concerned persons on 30thSeptember, 2006 and if other students had been
contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was even made on 30th
September, 2006 or even prior thereto to put these two vacant seats on the
internet or notice board of the colleges so as to enable the students of higher
merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in the Jagdalpur College. This
aspect attains a greater significance in view of the fact that the seats were
not allotted in the second counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Jagdalpur
College, the Directorate of the State Government as well as the Union of India
made no effort and did not act in coordination, to allot these two seats to the
candidates in accordance with merit in the PMT. The finding recorded by the
Committee appears to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon
examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It was not only expected
of the Committee to examine the documents which were made available to it, as
is recorded in the report, but also to call for all such necessary documents
which were relevant and could have bearing on the reference made to it. The
Committee has not even cared to know why everything was completed on 30th
September, 2006 and how nobody else except these two appellants were available
for admission from amongst candidates in the entire State.
40.
Another
aspect of this inquiry is that, even as on 30th September,2006, nobody was
clear as to which quota these two vacant seats belonged to. According to the
State of Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of the 15 per cent All India
quota which stood surrendered after 23rd August,2006. According to the
appellants, they were Central Pool quota seats which stood surrendered to the State
on 30th September, 2006 only. According to the Union of India, they had not made
any allotment to the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College from the All
India Quota, and even the code number given on the 8th August, 2006 letter is
wrong. If the Directorate, the Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were
not ad idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and who was the competent authority
to allot the seats, none of them had any business to allot these two seats in
such an arbitrary manner. Even now, there is no clarity as to how and under
what quota the Jagdalpur College has granted admission to these two appellants.
The inquiry report, in fact, does not help to resolve the issue and cannot,
thus, form the basis of returning any finding in favour of or against any
person. Ex facie, the findings returned by the Inquiry Committee appear to be
inconclusive, uncertain and vague. Be that as it may, there is no escape from
returning the finding that admission of both the appellants was made in a most
improper and arbitrary manner. The whole exercise was undertaken on 30th
September, 2006 with only one aim in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have
to be given admission in the Jagdalpur College.
41.
The
Government of India, taking the view that these were All India Quota seats
which had been wrongly allocated to these two appellants in a manner contrary
to the relevant Rules, vide its letter dated 22nd March,2010, directed
cancellation of the admissions of both the appellants. In furtherance to the
letter issued by the Central Government, the State Government vide its letter
dated 10th September, 2010, actually cancelled the admissions of both the
appellants.
42.
This
cancellation was challenged by the appellants before the High Court, which
allowed continuation of study under interim orders, though finally it dismissed
the writ petitions filed by these appellants. At that time, they had already
completed more than four years of the MBBS course to which they were admitted. Today,
they have already appeared for their final examination.
43.
We
are also in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court that the
Jagdalpur College ought to have declared these two seats as being available for
admission when the counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August,2006 and that
there was violation of the basic principles of equality of opportunity and of
equal consideration for allotment of seats. Candidates of higher merit stand
excluded. Another challenge which has been raised on behalf of the appellants before
us is that the order of cancellation dated 10th September, 2010 was passed without
affording any opportunity of hearing to these two appellants and, therefore,
the order is liable to be set aside, being violative of principles of natural justice.
It is, in fact, not in dispute before us that no specific notice had been given
to the appellants before the impugned order was passed. We are of the
considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine this submission
in any greater detail because the appellants have now had two occasions to put
forward their claim before the Court. The High Court has considered various
aspects of the case and has given a complete hearing to the appellants. We have
also heard the appellants at great length and have examined their challenge to the
order dated 10th September, 2010. No prejudice has been caused to them, inasmuch
as they have pursued their studies despite cancellation of admission and have
now been duly heard by the High Court, as well as this Court. Hence, this ground
of challenge does not, in any case, survive, particularly in view of the fact that
we have also held that the admission to these appellants was given in a completely
arbitrary and unfair manner.
44.
The
admission of the appellants was cancelled by the State Government which, even
under the Rules, is the final competent authority for such purposes. In the
present case, the mischief played by the concerned persons came to the notice of
the Central Government which directed cancellation of the seats and required the
State Government to act in accordance with law.
45.
The
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by way of last resort, advanced
an argument that even if the admissions are found to be irregular by the Court,
still, to balance the equities, the Court can direct surrender or creation of
equal number of seats in the next academic year by the Jagdalpur College. Further,
it is also contended that since the appellants have already completed substantial
part of their professional course, it will cause serious prejudice and irreparable
loss to them if their admissions are cancelled, particularly when the students are
not at fault and it is the Jagdalpur College or the Directorate of the State
Government which were instrumental in allotting two seats to these students. To
further substantiate this plea, another argument advanced is that in the
Government Colleges, the admission fee is very low and the Government spends a
considerable sum in imparting the medical education to the students of those
colleges. Thus, even that expenditure of the State would be wasted if
admissions were now cancelled.
46.
It
was also argued with some emphasis that the appellants are not at fault. They
had taken the entrance examination and were given seats by the concerned authorities.
Even if the authorities have committed some irregularity, the appellants should
not be made to suffer at the very end of their professional course. To
substantiate this premise, they relied upon the judgments of this Court in the
cases of A. Sudha v. University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537, Amandeep
Jaswal v. State of Punjab (2006)9 SCC 597, R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of
Kerala & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC105 and Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v.
The State of Gujarat & Ors.(2011) 3 SCC 617.
47.
We
have perused the judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioners. Firstly,
they were delivered on their own facts and the Court has not stated any
absolute principle of law, which would operate as a valid and binding
precedent. Secondly, in all these cases, the Court had returned the finding
that other authorities or rule-making bodies concerned were at fault and not the
students. In the case of Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai (supra), the Court had
noticed that the fault was of the rulemaking authority in not formulating the State
Rules, 2008 in conformity with the Medical Council of India Regulations, while in
the case of A. Sudha (supra), the Court found that the Principal of the institute
was at fault and he had made incorrect statements in writing, which were acted upon
by the students bona fide.
48.
In
the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the fault is attributed to
all the stakeholders involved in the process of admission, i.e., the concerned
Ministry of the Union of India, Directorate of Medical Education in the State
of Chhattisgarh, the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the three Members of
the Committee which granted admission to both the appellants on 30th September,
2006. But the students are also not innocent. They have certainly taken advantage
of being persons of influence. The father of the Appellant No. 2, Akansha Adile
was the Director of Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time
and as noticed above, the entire process of admission was handled through the
Directorate. The students well knew that the admissions can only be given on
the basis of merit in the entrance test and they had not ranked so high that
they were entitled to the admission on that basis alone. In fact, they were
also aware of the fact that no other candidate had been informed and that no one
was present due to non-intimation. Out of favouritism and arbitrariness, they
had been given admission by completing the entire admission process within a
few hours on 30th September, 2006.
49.
Balancing
of equities by the Court itself is inequitable. Some party or the other would
suffer a set back or adverse consequence from the order of the Court. On the
one hand, if admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically completed
their MBBS course would lose their professional education as well as nearly
five years of their life spent in such education. If their admissions are
protected, then the standard of education, the merit of the candidates and the
desirability of the persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated. The best
solution to such problems is strict adherence to the time schedule, procedure for
selection/admission and strict observance of the Medical Council of India Regulations,
by all concerned. Once these factors are adhered to, not only would such situation
not arise, but also it will prevent avoid able litigation before the Courts. The
persons who violate the time schedule to grant admissions in an arbitrary manner
and by colourable exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical Council of
India Regulations and the judgments of this Court, should be dealt with strictly
by punishment in accordance with law, to prevent such mischief from repeating. In
the present case, we are informed that the students have already sat for their final
examination and are about to complete their courses. Even if we have to protect
their admissions on the ground of equity, they cannot be granted such relief
except on appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, other candidates of
higher merit have been denied admission in the MBBS course. Secondly, they have
taken advantage of a very low professional college fee, as in private or
colleges other than the government colleges, the fee payable would be
Rs.1,95,000/- per year for general admission and for management quota, the fee
payable would be Rs.4,00,000/- per year, but in government colleges, it is
Rs.4,000/- per year. So, they have taken a double advantage. As per their
merit, they obviously would not have got admission into the Jagdalpur College
and would have been given admission in private colleges. The ranks that they obtained
in the competitive examination clearly depict this possibility, because there were
only 50seats in the Jagdalpur College and there are hundreds of candidates above
the appellants in the order of merit. They have also, arbitrarily and unfairly,
benefitted from lower fees charged in the Jagdalpur College.
50.
On
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though we find no legal or
other infirmity in the judgment under appeal, but to do complete justice
between the parties within the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, we would permit the appellants to complete their professional courses,
subject to the condition that each one of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the
Jagdalpur College, which amount shall be utilized for developing the
infrastructure in the Jagdalpur College.
51.
We
have not and should not be even understood to have stated any precedent for the
cases like grant of admission and leave to complete the course like the
appellants in the present case.
52.
We
are imposing heavy costs upon these appellants to ensure that such admissions
are neither accepted nor granted leave to complete their medical courses in
future.
53.
We
would, thus, hereby issue directions on the one hand and order initiation of
contempt proceedings against all the defaulting parties under the provisions of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of
India. ORDER : Accordingly, we order as follows: - 1. Though, we find no merit
in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to complete their MBBS
course as general candidates in the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur,
subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today.
2. In the event of default of payment or failure to file proof of payment in
the Registry of this Court, not only will the present appeal stand dismissed on
merits, but we also direct that the exam results of the defaulting appellant
will not be declared, they will not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by the
Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India shall not register their
names on the rolls maintained by it or the State Council, as the case may be.
3. For the reasons afore-stated, if their admissions are cancelled, there being
no claimants for these seats, the seats will go waste and the entire
expenditure incurred by the State would also be wasted. After so many years, it
would be an exercise in futility to cancel their admissions, which, but for the
interim orders, could be avoided. An undue advantage from the interim orders
has accrued in favour of the appellants. With all the humility at our command,
we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time
schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. We reiterate what has
been stated by this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases, the High
Court may consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main petitions
finally, subject to convenience of the Court. We may refer the dictum of this
Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences [(2004) 6 SCC 76, para 14] in this regard. 4. We have categorically
returned a finding that all the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform
their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not
been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation
have prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance with each other
and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure
proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the
Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook the arbitrary and colourable
exercise of power by the concerned authorities/colleges. 5. Therefore, we
hereby direct initiation of proceedings against the following under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the
following, to show cause why they be not punished in accordance with law. a.
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Union of India. b.
Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education. c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College. d.
Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee. e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member
of the Selection Committee. f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection
Committee. g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of India.
5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which day the matter shall be
listed before this Court. Registry shall maintain separate file for that
purpose. 6. All concerned authorities are hereby directed to carry out the directions
and orders contained in this judgment, particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the
judgment forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the academic year
2012-2013 itself.
54.
A
copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned authorities, forth with,
for strict compliance and adherence, without demur and default.
55.
Both
the appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
…………………………….,J.
[A.K. Patnaik]
…………………………….,J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
New
Delhi;
May
8, 2012
Back
