Medical Council of India vs Dr. Jenita Singh and others

S.K. Mishra, J.—In this appeal, the Medical Council of India has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 18025 of 2011 directing the opposite parties to admit the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 in the vacant seat as direct candidate in M.D. Ophthalmology Course in the SCB Medical College, Cuttack. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Appeal may be stated as under:-

The respondent No. 1, after completing her MBBS course, applied for admission in Post-Graduate Medical Courses under the reserved green card category in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2, i.e. Chairman, Post Graduation Selection Committee, for Academic Session 2011-12. The respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent No. 2, and as per the merit list published, she secured the rank of 429 in general unreserved category and rank 39 under the reserved green card category. As per the notice dated 25.03.2011 published by respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 -candidate appeared in the counseling on 08.04.2011 under the direct reserved category. On that date of counselling under reserved green card category, the respondent No. 1 was in 3rd position after Dr. Debasis Behera and Dr. Ranjit Behera. The respondent No. 1 opted Pathology in VSS Medical College, Burla and took admission in that course. Dr. Ranjit Behera opted for ENT course in MKCG Medical College, Berhampur and took admission there.

Because of fact that few seats remained vacant, respondent No. 2 issued another notice dated 27.06.2011 notifying there will be second counselling to the admission of the Post-Graduate Medical Courses, 2011 for the three Government Medical Colleges, which was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2011 and 30.06.2011. The respondent No. 1 contended that she appeared in the second counselling on 30.06.2011. Dr. Ranjit Behera, who had taken admission under green card category in ENT Course in MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, opted to take admission under unreserved category in M.S. General Surgery in VSS Medical College, Burla, and thus, the seat in ENT Course in MKCG Medical College fell vacant. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 surrendered her seat in Pathology Course in VSS Medical College and opted for the ENT Course in MKCG Medical College. Further, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refused admission to respondent No. 1 and allotted the ENT seat to Dr. B. Radhika-respondent No. 4, who is a general unreserved category candidate. That the representation submitted by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 before respondent No. 2 was rejected on the ground that, inter alia, no admission can be granted after 30.06.2011.

The respondent No. 1 challenged the decision of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by way of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 18025 of 2011 contending that the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is arbitrary. The respondent No. 1 prayed that she be allowed admission and pursue her studies in ENT Course.

The learned single Judge, vide order dated 15.12.2011, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and permitted her to take mid-session admission. Such order has been assailed in this appeal mainly on the ground that it is violative of the principle decided by Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, .

While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that clause 14.5 of the prospects provides that in case of non-availability of green card candidates, the seat will merge in respective general category. In the present case, the learned Judge observed that, the petitioner surrendered her seat in Pathology course in VSS Medical College, Burla and opted for reserved green card category in ENT course in MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, it was not a case of non-availability for reserved green card category candidate. It was, further, held by the learned single Judge that the authorities were not justified in ignoring the claim of the petitioner and allowing the seat to the opposite party No. 4, who comes under the general unreserved category. It, further, weighed in the mind of the learned single Judge that in the State like Orissa where there is acute shortage of doctors to cater to the growing rural population, allowing seats in P.G. medical courses in Government Medical Colleges to remain vacant is a national waste and opposed to public interest, especially such seats cannot be carried forward to the next academic year. Finding no justification in denying admission to the petitioner against the vacant seat falling under the State quota when she possess requisite eligibility and merit, it was directed by the learned Judge that the petitioner be given admission in the vacant seat in Ophthalmology course in SCB Medical College, Cuttack, which comes under the State quota for direct candidate.

While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge has totally lost sight on the fact that the course of post-graduates in medical sciences are guided by a time bound programme in which the last date was mentioned by which the students can take admission is 30.09.2011. This date has been fixed by the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and the same cannot be breached. The Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, after taking into consideration the fact that if any student is admitted after commencement of the course it would be against the intended object of fixing a time schedule. The Supreme Court, further, held that as the factual position goes 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. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the plea that with the object of preventing loss to the national exchequer such admissions should be permitted. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that midstream admissions cannot be permitted. The Supreme Court, further, held that the time scheduled is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the students to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling the requisite days would be harmful to the student''s physical and mental capacity to study. Therefore, the Supreme Court arrived at the following conclusions:-

(i) There is no scope of admitting students midstream as that would be against the spirit of statutes governing medical education;

(ii) Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground of mid-session admission;

(iii) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year;

(iii) MCI shall ensure that examining bodies fixing time scheduled specifying the duration of course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission;

(iv) Different modality for admission can be worked and necessary steps for examination if prescribed, counselling and the like have to be completed within a specified time,

(v) No variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed;

(vi) In case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by the MCI.

Similar is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, : AIR 2005 SC 666). In that case the Supreme Court, at paragraph-32, has held as follows:-

Having regard to the professional courses, it deserves to be emphasized that all concerned including Governments, State and Central both, MCI/DCI, colleges - new or old, students, Boards, universities, examining authorities, etc., are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for; there should not be midstream admissions; admissions should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota of anyone, whether State or management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year is also not permissible.

At paragraph-35(4), the Supreme Court, further, has held that it shall be responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State, Union Territory and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance with the directions of the Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences. At sub-paragraph-12 the Supreme Court, further, held that the time schedule for grant of admission to post-graduate courses shall also be adhered to.

In this case, the last admission was, as per the second counselling, held on 30.06.2011. So, the learned single Judge committed error by directing that the petitioner should be admitted in the P.G. Course on 15.12.2011. On this ground alone, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 18025 of 2011 is not sustainable. Hence, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 18025 of 2011 is hereby set aside.