M. Sivahar vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600010, The Dean, Karpaga Vinayaga Dental College, Chinnakolaambakkam, Kanchipuram District and The Principal, Hindusthan College of Engineering and Technology, Othakkalamandapam Post, Coimbatore - 32

Honourable Mr. Justice T. Raja

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent herein to admit the petitioner herein in the BDS Course, pursuant to his selection and allotment order issued in the counselling held on 08.09.2011, by affording reasonable time for production of original transfer certificate and other certificates required by the second respondent. The petitioner, in the 12th standard, has secured 1065 marks out of 1200. Thereafter, he applied both for Engineering Course and BDS Course for the academic year 2011-2012. In the counselling, he was given admission to join Hindusthan College of Engineer and Technology at Coimbatore. Thereafter, he joined in the said College on 29.07.2011, by paying necessary fee for the first year.

Subsequently, he received a call letter from the first respondent for the counselling on 08.09.2011, for the BDS Course at Kilpauk Medical College Campus, Chennai. On receipt of the same, the petitioner also participated in the said counselling and as a result, he was selected by the first respondent and thereby, allotment order was given by the second respondent directing him to join the BDS Course in the second respondent College on or before 16.09.2011. On receipt of the allotment order issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has sent his written representation to the third respondent College requesting to refund the fees paid by him and return the original certificates, so as to enable him to join the second respondent College.

On 16.09.2011, he appeared before the second respondent College with bonafide fee certificate issued by the third respondent College. But, the second respondent refused to accept his reasons and rejected his request for admission due to non-production of original transfer certificate and other certificates. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that when the second respondent has informed the petitioner to furnish all the original certificates before 16.09.2011, he failed to furnish the same before the second respondent. As the petitioner and four other students have failed to report for admission on or before 16.09.2011, by producing the relevant documents, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, no student could be admitted, and accordingly, they were rejected. Further, it is seen from the counter that, as per the Government Policy, out of 100 seats earmarked for admission for the academic year 201-2012, 35 seats are management seats and 65 seats are government seats and that all the seats, in respect of government quota, were filled up before 30.09.2011.

Though the claim pleaded by the petitioner may require sympathetic consideration, but this court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner in the context of series of judgments of the supreme court rendered in this regard. At an earlier point of time, the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had granted directions to admit such unfortunate candidates. But in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, (which are squarely on the point) there is no scope for any court to shift the cut off date on account of particular personal predilections or situations which were beyond the control.

In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, , all admissions should be over by 30.09.2011. While speaking against the mid-stream admission after commencement of the course, the Apex Court in paragraph 19 thereof disapproved granting admission on compassionate ground. In paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 of the judgment, it was held as under:

In State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and others, this Court disapproved the course adopted by several High Courts directing students to be admitted much after the course had commenced. Though that case was for admissions under the Dentists Act, 1948 (in short the ''Dentists Act''), identical provisions were under consideration. In para 8, it was noted as under:

The admission in medical course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions, including regulations framed under different Acts. During last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter-attempt is also apparent and discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on "compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination. According to us, there does not appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10-A and Section 10-B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to above.

23..................In conclusion:

(i) there is no scope for admitting students mid-stream as that would be against very spirit of statutes governing the medical education;

(ii) even if, seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid session admissions;

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

(iv) the MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission;

(v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have to be completed within the specified time;

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

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

The High Court was obviously in error in directing mid-session admission...........

In addition to the above ruling, the Supreme Court, vide its judgment in State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and others, forewarned the High Courts from giving any directions for creating additional seats which would amount to violating relevant provisions of the Act under which such colleges are functioning. In the light of the above legal precedents, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.