Swati Sailly vs Union of India

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Petitioner, a candidate for getting admission to the '' Diploma in Psychological Medicine Course - in the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi - (in short referred to as CIP) got a call for taking admission on 31st May, 2016 through '' e-mail - issued at 3.15 p.m. (Annexure-2). She was asked to appear on or before 31st May, 2016 with the supporting documents and credentials as well as certificates, failing which, her selection shall be treated as cancelled without any further communication in this regard.

According to her, despite her best efforts, she could reach '' Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi - from her place of residence in the State of Chattisgarh, Distt :- Koriya only late at night when the offices were closed. On the following day, she was denied admission on account of the deadline prescribed by the '' Medical Council of India - as per Notification dated 22nd January, 2016 as approved by the Hon-ble Apex Court vide order dated 18th January, 2016 in the case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. along with other analogous cases (Annexed as Annexure-R/4).

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that there are no faults attributable to her and the respondent-CIP should have admitted her on such peculiar facts that the call letter was sent to her through '' e-mail - at 3.15 p.m. on 31st May, 2016 being the last date for taking admission. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Asha v. PT. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors., reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 specially Paragraph Nos. 30, 31 and 32 : (AIR 2012 SC 3396, para 31).

Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent has filed counter-affidavit and has tried to explain the sequence of the facts leading to the issuance of the call letter upon the petitioner on the last day of admission, as per the MCI guidelines. According to the respondents, out of 18 seats in '' Diploma in Psychological Medicine Course - (in short referred to as DPM), 14 seats were filled up through All India Quota till 5.00 p.m. on 10-5-2016 as this was the last date of online admission through AIPGME 2016. For remaining 4 seats of '' Diploma in Psychological Medicine Course - approval of competent authority was obtained to fill up the vacant seats. It is submitted that letter dated 29th July, 2016 of the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi, clearly stipulates that deadline for admission as prescribed by the Hon - ble Supreme Court in P.G. admission must be strictly followed. The petitioner was declared wait-list second in the '' DPM Course - under unreserved category vide Mop-up counselling held on 26th May, 2016. On the same day offer letters were issued to all the selected candidates to join the course on or before 28.5.2016. Out of 05 selected candidates for DPM, only 04 DPM joined. One candidate under unreserved category did not report to join the course till 28.5.2016. Since 29.5.2016 was Sunday, therefore, the Institute cancelled the offer issued to him on 30.5.2016. This was duly communicated to him through '' e-mail - . Thereafter offer of admission of vacant seat under unreserved category was issued to one Dr. Sankesh Kumar Singh, 1st wait-listed candidate on 30.5.2016 asking him to join on or before 31.5.2016. The said candidate did not join the course and as such, he communicated his refusal through letter dated 31st May, 2016 in the afternoon. Only on receipt of the refusal, the vacant seat was offered to the petitioner, the 2nd wait-listed under unreserved category for DPM course through call letter annexed as Annexure-2 issued on 31st May, 2016 asking her to join on the same day.

Respondents have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. (supra) where under the notification issued by the MCI prescribing the deadlines for counselling and admission to the MBBS Courses and P.G. Medical courses have been given a stamp of approval.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the aforesaid state of facts they express inability in view of the deadline prescribed by the Apex Court to admit any student including the petitioner after the deadline of 31st May, 2016.

Learned counsel appearing for the MCI upon instruction submits that violation of the deadlines prescribed in the schedule of the MCI approved by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment is being monitored in the same case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. (supra). He further submits that as per the telephonic instructions received Interlocutory applications by individual have also been filed therin. However, no order till date has been passed on such matters. The said case is likely to be taken on 5th July, 2016.

I have considered the submissions of the parties, in the light of the relevant pleadings and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. It appears that after the judgment rendered by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Asha (AIR 2012 SC 3396) (supra) on 10th July, 2012 upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, the schedule relating to the counselling and admission to the Medical and PG Courses have been revised by the notification of the Medical Council of India which has received the stamp of approval by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. (supra) vide judgment dated 18th July, 2016 (annexed as Annexure R-4 to the affidavit of the Respondent-CIP). The case of the petitioner may be a hard case, but the deadline prescribed by the MCI as approved by the Hon-ble Supreme Court have to be followed.

It further appears from the judgment dated 18th January, 2016 in the case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. (supra), there has been request for extension of time before the Hon-ble Apex Court by the National Board of Examination on which considering the natural calamity faced in the State of Tamil Nadu, extension of time was granted. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained for issuing any direction upon the respondents to admit the petitioner beyond the deadline prescribed i.e. 31st May, 2016. According, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.