AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the second Respondent (Sree Moogambigai
Medical College) to admit the Petitioner and allow him to attend the classes in MBBS course for theyear commencing from 2009-2010 as per the
allotment order of the first Respondent dated 30.09.2009.
When the writ petition came up on 28.10.2009, this Court found that the first Respondent viz., Secretary, Selection Committee gave the
allotment order only at 1.30 p.m. on 30.09.2009 with instructions to the Petitioner to go and pay the admission fee on the sameday. But in the very
same order, it was also indicated that the date of joining the institution should be on30.09.2009 at 10.00 a.m. It would have been impossible for
the Petitioner to go from Chennai to the second Respondent College at Kulasekaram in Kanyakumari Districton the same date and that too before
5 p.m. Therefore, in the light of the above, this Court directed the first Respondent to make some alternative arrangements and to report before the
Court on 04.11.2009.
On 04.11.2009, this Court recorded that the second Respondent College was willing to admit the Petitioner provided the first Respondent gets
aratification in excess of one seat since already all the100 seats have been filled up and they were also willing to forego one seat for the next
academic year. The second Respondent college had also submitted that if any ratification is obtained for such admission from the Medical Council
of India (MCI), they were willing to consider the same. Therefore, the first Respondent Selection Committee was directed to obtain permission
from the MCI for ratifying the admission of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was also permitted to attend classes from 12.11.2009.
Subsequently, the Petitioner has impleaded the MCI as third Respondent and Dr. M.G.R. Medical University as 4th Respondent by an order
dated 03.12.2009. Thereafter, by a further order dated 22.11.2010, Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health
was also made as party 5th Respondent.
In the counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent, it was stated by them that the Selection Committee by a fax order dated 29.09.2009
directed the College not to implement the admission procedure for the counselling conducted on 26th and 28th September 2009 until further
orders. But however, on the same day, by asecond fax order, the Selection Committee directed the colleges to proceed with the admission of
allotted/reallotted students on 26.09.2009 and 28.09.2009 and directed the colleges to permit candidates'' admission till 5 p.m. on 30.09.2009.
According to the direction, the College had admitted 29 students sponsored by the Selection Committee up to 5 p.m. on 30.09.2009. In respect
of the Petitioner in Paragraphs 11 and 12, it was averred as follows:
I state that the Petitioner came to the college around 11 am on01.10.2009 and gave a letter requesting to give admission to him in 1st year
MBBS - 2009. This Respondent college expressed its regrets for its inability to admit him in view of the Time Schedule followed by the aforesaid
Fax order sent by the 1st Respondent Selection Committee dated 30.09.2009.
It is respectfully submitted thatthe other averments levelled by thePetitioner are all unsustainable. This Respondent college has no occasion for
any ill will against the Petitioner to deny admission to him. It is only on account of the legal bar, the college could not give admission to him beyond
the date prescribed by the Medical Council of India, the University and the Selection Committee. Even on the last day i.e., 30.09.2009, this
Respondent college gave admission to29 candidates forwarded by the 1st Respondent Selection Committee. The last candidate was one S.S.
BarathKumar who was admitted at 4.15 pm on30.09.2009. He did not even come with the essential documents viz., Mark Statement, Transfer
Certificate etc. Even then, this Respondent gave him admission on his undertaking that he would produce all those certification or before
05.10.2009 (Annexure -III)
In the counter affidavit of the first Respondent dated 26.10.2009, it was claimed that on 29.09.2009, one candidate who was admitted in the
second Respondent College expressed her unwillingness and in the resultant vacancy, the Petitioner was allotted and he also remitted a sum of Rs.
25,000/-being the partial amount of the tuition fee. It was also stated that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of
India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, that all admissions should be over by 30.09.2009.
In the additional counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent dated 12.11.2009, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it was further averred as follows:
The allotment to Petitioner M.S. Muhammed Sheik Abdullah was given on 30.09.2009 and it was informed through phone to Sree
Moogambigai Medical Science and Research Institute. The same was confirmed byFAX to the College at 2.58 p.m.
In this circumstances I am to state that this Petitioner was allotted on30.09.2009 within the 50% of Government Quota allotment. Instead the
management has admitted a candidate under management quota, quoting as lapsed Government quota seat, which is illegal.
In this circumstances the college has to admit the Petitioner for 2009-2010session within the Medical Council of India recgonised seat (within 50%
of Government Quota seats allotted).
On behalf of the third Respondent, Medical Council of India, in their counter affidavit, dated 11.01.2010, it was stated that no Medical College
can exceed the intake capacity fixed by the MCI and no Medical College can admit any student beyond the statutory Time Schedule viz., 30th
September of that year. There can neither be any admission over and above the sanctioned annual intake nor can be any admission to MBBS seat
of the previous year to the subsequent academic year. In support of their contention, they also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Madhu Singh''s case (cited supra).
In its judgment in State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and others, , the Supreme Court forewarned the High Courts from giving any
direction for creating additional seats which would amount to violating relevant provisions of the Act under which such colleges are functioning. In
the typed set of document, the MCI hadalso referred to other orders of the Supreme Court relating to identical situation.
In the first order of the Supreme Court in MCI v. G. Udhaya Bharathi in Civil Appeal No. 4051/2004, the Supreme Court though approved a
direction given to admit the student on the subsequent academic year, which view was followed in the subsequent judgment in Medical Council of
India v. Naina Verma and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 626), Harshali D/o Sudamrao Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC
464), Al-Karim Educational Trust and Anr. v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 466, Vijay Jaimini v. MedicalCouncil of India
and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 461, those directions were not any more followed in the subsequent judgment in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Others, . After prescribing the Time Schedule in paragraph 31, in Paragraph 32, it was held that there should not be
midstream admissions in excess of the sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota for anyone, whether State or Management. In carrying
forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year was also not permissible.
On behalf of the 4th Respondent, a counter affidavit dated 05.03.2010 was filed. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that the University
has no role in the matter of admission of the students.
With reference to the request of the Petitioner to write the examination, the University produced a copyof the letter dated 15.11.2010
addressed to the learned Counsel, in which it was stated that the Petitioner has not secured the minimum attendance of 80%. The Petitioner, having
secured only 75% attendance on an average cannot be permitted to write any examination, even though he might have been directed to be
admitted.
After the Union of India was impleaded by this Court, this Court directed them to inform this Court whether they were willing to increase the
intake of number of students so as to accommodate the Petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India produced a copy of the communication dated 29.11.2010 sent by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In paragraph 2 of the communication, the Deputy Secretary to the Union of India had stated as follows:
In this regard, it is submitted that since the admission matter is the subject of the concerned State Government, therefore this Ministry has no
comments to offer. As far as increase of seats in MBBS course beyond sanctioned intake of 100 at Respondent college is concerned, it is stated
that the college is a recognized Medical college for 100students only and the seats in MBB Scourse are increased as per the provisions of IMC
Act, 1956 and the Regulations made there under. Therefore, at this stage, the seats in MBBS course at Sri Moogambigai Medical College,
Kulasekharan, TamilNadu cannot be increased beyond the sanctioned intake of 100.
(Emphasis added)
In the light of these developments, the only question to be decided is whether the Petitioner can be given any relief.
16.1. Mr. Veerakathiravan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a performance of an impossible duty must be excused in
accordance with the maxim ""lex non cogit ad impossibilia"". It is to mean the law does not compel the doing of impossibilities. For this purpose, he
relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala,
16.2 On the same reasoning, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Another, . He
referred to Para 115 where the Supreme Court in calculating a presentation of an Election Petition found that on the last date of presentation, the
High Court was closed and therefore presentation on the next available working day was in order. The Court based the reasoning on the maxim
that an impossible task cannot expected to be performed.
16.3 The counsel thereafter referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank and others v. Directorate of Enforcement
and others reported in 2003 (4) SCC 530. In para 29 the Court referred to the same maxim in the context of a company being sentenced toa term
of imprisonment.
16.4 For the very same proposition he also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Binani Zinc Limited Vs. Kerala State Electricity
Board and Others, . In that judgment in paragraph 35, the Court referred to the same lat in maxim in the context the Electricity Boards were not
requested to adopt the principles to be followed by Electricity Regulatory Commissions.
16.5 He also referred to another latin maxim ''actuscuriae neminem gravabit"". It is to mean that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. For this
purpose reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Tarapada Dey and Others, . In that
case the Court was concerned with the limitation under Registration Act.
16.6. It is not clear as to how these decisions can assist the Petitioner when the Supreme Court dealing with identical situation under the very same
enactment prohibited authorities from admitting any one after 30th September of that academic year.
In the present case, in the absence of any clear legal and enforceable right, this Court cannot grant any direction contrary to the statutory norms
and the dictalaid down by the Supreme court in Madhu Singh''s case(cited supra). Admittedly, the Petitioner was not admitted before 5 p.m. on
30.09.2009. It may be, he was given the allotment letter only at 1.30 p.m. on30.09.2009 with instructions to the Petitioner to go to the second
Respondent College at Kulasekaram in Kanyakumari District, which is 700 kms away on the sameday. Whatever may be the circumstances
pleaded, in the light of the binding legal precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and the statutory provisions, the relief claimed by the
Petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.
To obviate the difficulties faced by persons like the Petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court even in the year 2006 in Minor R. Shyamala,
represented by father Dr. S. Ramesh v. State of Tamilnadu and others dated 30.10.2006 (W.A. Nos. 1269 of 2006 and etc. batch) gave series of
directions to the authorities. If only those guidelines would have been stipulated as conditions for admission the present situation would not have
arisen. At the risk of repetition, it is necessary to refer to the said guidelines set out in paragraph 10, which is as follows:
Guidelines for admission to next academic year:
10.1. As requested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the two Colleges, we issue the followingguidelines to be followed by the Colleges
for admissions to be made next year:
a. Time Schedule prescribed by the admission committee /competent authority should be followed and there should be no deviation.
b. Whether the Colleges are selecting on the basis of the option / preference to be expressed by the candidate thesame should be mentioned in the
Prospectus and Applications clearly.
c. Deadline for admission after every stage of selection should be given and a waiting list should be prepared and published.
d. If any candidate had not joined before the deadline, then automatically the candidate from the waiting list must beinformed and admission should
be given.
e. In order to avoid any delay in intimating the candidate, a daily update must be put in the f. In addition to the same, candidates should be
informed either by E-Mail or by SMS about their being asked to come for counselling for admission. Aprovision should be given in the Application
form to get their E-Mail addresses or Mobile Numbers for the purpose of forwarding the message regarding admission in addition to the telegram
being sent as of now.
g. Since most of the allegations were that the candidates either did not have the lump sum cash or the Colleges were refusing to receive the
payment by cheques, Colleges must make arrangements to have an online transmission of the amounts through wire by the Bank. This will provide
safety and security to both sides.
The Colleges will carry out these guidelines in addition to any further guidelines that may be issued by the competent authorities who will be in
charge of selection for the next academic year.
Though this judgment was issued as early as October 2006, the admission authorities have not issued any guidelines impugned in the said
order. Such lapse on their part had become the root cause for such unexpected contingencies resulting in the miseries of students aspiring to join
professional courses. In case if the Petitioner had gone on 30.09.2009 and still if he was refused admission, this Court could have given some
monetary compensation for the suffering. Admittedly, he was given admission after 30.09.2009.
In the light of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. However, a direction will issue to
the second Respondent to return all the certificates to the Petitioner including the tuition fee paid by him, since the second Respondent College was
not legally entitled to admit such students after 30th September. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.