Akila Kannan vs The Government of Tamilnadu and The Medical Council of India

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Akila Kannan, who had passed his S.S.L.C. Examination, in the month of March, 2007. He

had secured 464 marks out of 500 marks. His date of birth has been mentioned in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, as 17.1.1993.

Thereafter, he had appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination, held in the month of March, 2009. The marks obtained by him in the plus two

examination are as follows:

Tamil - 181

English - 159

Physics - 199

Chemistry - 191

Biology - 189

Maths - 183

He had secured 1102 marks out of 1200 marks in the said examination.

It has been further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner in the mark sheet and in the transfer certificate is 17.1.1993. The petitioner

belongs to Vanniya community, which is recognised as a Most Backward Class community. The petitioner had submitted an application for

admission to M.B.B.S course, for the academic session 2009-2010, to the second respondent. The application registration number is 319618.

The A.R. number is 2260 and the Random number is 9937688177.

It has been further stated that Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic

session 2009-2010, stipulates that the candidate should have completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2009. Even though the petitioner

had secured the cut-off marks of 192 marks out of 200 marks, his name did not find a place in the merit/rank list, published by the second

respondent, for admission to the M.B.B.S course, for the academic session 2009-2010. On enquiry, he was informed by the second respondent

that his name had not been included in the merit/rank list since he had not completed 17 years of age, on or before 31.12.2009. In spite of the fact

that the petitioner is qualified in all respects to be selected for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic session 2009-2010, he has not been called

for the counselling, only on the ground that he is short of 17 days to meet the age requirement, prescribed in Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by

the second respondent. The petitioner has further stated that the age limit stipulated in Clause 4 of the prospectus is arbitrary, irrational and has no

nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for

admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, which stipulates that the candidate should have completed the age of

17 years, on or before 31.12.2009, is arbitrary, irrational and has no nexus to the course. Therefore, it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, as there is discrimination amongst the equally qualified candidates, who are seeking admission to the M.B.B.S course.

The learned Counsel had further submitted that, while no age limit is prescribed for other professional courses like the B.E. Courses in the State

of Tamil Nadu, it is arbitrary and irrational to prescribe such an age limit for the medical courses. Since the petitioner is only 17 days short of the

stipulated age limit, he must be considered for admission to the M.B.B.S course, for the academic session 2009-2010. Since the petitioner had

been permitted to write the S.S.L.C public examination in the month of March, 2007 and the Higher Secondary Examination, in the month of

March, 2009, he should have been considered for admission to the M.B.B.S course, even though he was 17 days short of the prescribed age limit.

Per contra, Mr. V.P. Raman, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India, the third respondent herein, had

submitted that the age limit stipulated in the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses, for the

academic session 2009-2010, is in accordance with The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000. Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956, which empowers The Medical Council of India to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education, reads as follows:

19A. Minimum standards of medical education.-- (1) The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting

recognised medical qualifications (other than post-graduate medical qualifications) by Universities or medical institutions in India.

(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the

Council shall, before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into

consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.

(3) The Committee shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Council such

amendments thereof as it may think fit.

According to Section 33 of the Act, the Council may make regulations, generally, to carry out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the

powers conferred by Section 33 of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, The Medical Council of India, with the previous sanction of the

Central Government had made the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000. The age limit of 17 years fixed for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S

Courses are in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000.

Since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the power vested in the Indian Medical Council to make regulations, in accordance with Section

33 of the Act, and the Regulations made by the Council, invoking the power vested in it to make such Regulations, it would not be open to the

petitioner to challenge Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for M.B.B.S./B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-

2010, prescribing the age limit of 17 years for the candidates to apply for the said courses. In fact, the age limit of 17 years had been fixed by an

expert commitee consisting of experts in the medical field and other related fields. Therefore, it may not be open to the petitioner to question the

age limit of 17 years fixed for a candidate to be qualified to apply for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S Courses.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, The Medical Council of India, had relied on the following decisions in support

of his contentions:

1) Shri. D.R. Gautam v. University of Delhi and Anr. C.W. No. 4057 of 1997

2) Shri D.R. Gautam v. University of Delhi and Anr. L.P.A. No. 274 of 1997

3) Ms. Indu v. Central Board of Secondary Education and four Ors. C.W. No. 1255 of 2000

4) U. Anveshini v. The Convenor EMCET 2000 Jawaharlal Nehru, Technological University, Hyderabad and three Ors. W.P. No. 23357 of

2000

5) Amarsinha v. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department and four Ors. W.P. No. 1841 of

2003 batch

6) Mohit Kumar Arora v. University of Delhi and two Ors. C.W.P. No. 4353 of 2003

7) Aarushi Jaswal v. Medical Council of India and Anr. C.W.P. No. 4834 of 2009.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that from the decisions in the cases cited supra, it could be

seen that the Courts have expressed the view that it is not the function of the Courts to go into the question of prescription of age, unless, it seems

to be so absurd and unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept such a prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not

equipped with any expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be the proper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is for the

policy makers to consider the various factors which are relevant to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission to the medical courses.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that there is a rationale behind the fixing of the date on which a

candidate must attain the age of 17 years. It is intended to apply uniformly throughout the country. The Medical Council of India has chosen to fix

the date as 31st of December of the concerned year in which a candidate is admitted in the M.B.B.S. Course. The qualifying examinations are

conducted by the various Boards, Universities etc., at different points of time in a year. Similarly, the entrance examinations for the admission to

M.B.B.S Course are conducted on different dates. Further, the first year M.B.B.S. Course may commence at different points of time in a year.

Therefore, with a view to have uniformity, the Medical Council has chosen 31st of December, as the date on which the candidate should attain the

age of 17 years, in the year in which the admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is made. Further, in the existing pattern of education in the country,

normally, a candidate passes the qualifying the examination at the age of 16 or 17 years of age. The Medical Council in its wisdom had come to the

conclusion that, for proper understanding and comprehension of medical education, a candidate must possess certain level of maturity, which

comes with age. The prescription of the minimum age is on account of studied deliberations made by the Medical Council and is a manifestation of

an informed decision taken by the Medical Council in association with the Central Government, for prescribing the minimum standards and

qualifications. The said decision has been taken in pursuance of the discussions, consultations and deliberations made by an expert academic body

and is made for the furtherance and maintenance of minimum standards for medical education. Therefore, such a regulation cannot be characterised

as arbitrary.

It has also been submitted that there is no power vested with the Indian Medical Council, or any other authority to relax the condition in favour

of the candidates, in specific cases. Even if the candidate concerned had been permitted to write the 10th standard and the plus two examinations

by granting an exemption, with regard to the minimum required age of the candidate, it cannot be a good reason for the granting of such an

exemption, in respect of the age limit fixed, under Clause 4 of the prospectus, issued by the second respondent, for the M.B.BS/B.D.S admissions,

for the academic session 2009-2010. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is devoid of merits.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of

the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot be granted.

Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, is in

accordance with The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, and the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 19A of

The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, provides that The Medical Council of India, may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education

for granting recognised medical qualifications by the Universities and the Medical Institutions in India.

Section 33 of the Act empowers the Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, to make regulations to carry out the

purposes of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the relevant provisions of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Regulations

of The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, are inapplicable to the present case. Nor is it the case of the petitioner that such provisions and

regulations are arbitrary, contrary to the other laws in force, including the provisions of the Constitution of India. As such, it would not be open to

the petitioner to challenge Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the

academic session 2009-2010, stating that it is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Since the petitioner would not be completing 17 years of age, on or before 31.12.2009, he is not qualified to apply for the M.B.B.S/B.D.S

Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010. Merely for the reason that the petitioner had been permitted to write the 10th standard and the plus

two examinations, it cannot be a ground for granting the exemption in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the age limit prescribed under Clause 4

of the prospectus issued by the second respondent. In view of the decisions cited supra it is clear that the Courts of law ought to be reluctant to

interfere in matters relating to education, especially, when certain conditions of admission to medical courses are prescribed by the experts in the

medical and its allied fields. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. As the writ

petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed.