High CourtsSingle Bench

C. Sangathtamil and A. Nivedha Priyanka vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 28 June 2010 · Citation: (2010) 06 MAD CK 0174

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Hariparanthaman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 11632 and 11633 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

28 paragraphs · 516 words

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioners have passed +2 examination, that was conducted in March 2010. They have applied for M.B.B.S.

course to the Secretary, Selection Committee, the third respondent herein for the year 2010 - 2011. The petitioners were not considered for

selection to M.B.B.S. course on the ground that they were born on 03.01.1994 and 08.01.1994 respectively and that they have not completed 17

years of age as on 31.12.2010. The non consideration of the petitioners are as per the Clause ''4'' of the Prospectus. As per this Clause, the

candidate should have completed 17 years of age as on 31st December of the year in which the admission to M.B.B.S., course is made.

Admittedly, the petitioners are not qualified to make an application, in view of the aforesaid Clause in the Prospectus.

2.

In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying for declaration to declare that Clause 4 of the General Instructions

in the Prospectus issued by the third respondent for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S Course for the year 2010-2011 as unconstitutional and ultravires

and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners'' case for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S Course for the year 2010-2011

without reference to Clause 4 of the General Instructions given in the Prospectus issued by the third respondent for the year 2010-2011 and select

them for admission if they are otherwise eligible for such admission.

3.

Notice of Motion was ordered on 08.06.2010

4.

Heard Mr. R. Singgaravelan, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1

to 4 and Ms. Jannavi Raghuraman, learned Counsel for the fifth respondent.

5.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) the Medical Council of India made

the regulations called the ""Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997"". Regulation 4(1) that is relevant for the present case is extracted

here-under:

Admission to the Medical Course - Eligibility Criteria: No Candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical Curriculum of first Bachelor of

Medicine and Bachelor of Surger (MBBS) Course until:

(1) He/she shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st December, of the year admission to the MBBS Course.

Therefore, Clause 4 of the Prospectus questioned in these writ petitions is based on the Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical

Education, 1997 framed by the Medical Council of India. The Regulations are statutory in force and the Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations is not

challenged.

6.

In an identical situation, this Court in W.P. No. 12531 of 2009 on 05.08.2009 Akil Kannan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

dismissed the writ petition holding that the statutory regulation was not challenged in the writ petition. As stated above, in this case, the Regulation

is not questioned.

7.

In view of the Regulation mentioned above and in view of the judgment in W.P. No. 12531 of 2009 (referred to above), these writ petitions

have no merit and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.