AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bakthavatsalam, J.—Originally, writ petition No. 15231 of 1993 is filed with the following prayer:
...to issue a writ of declaration declaring that Clause 12 of the prospectus for admission to the M.B.B.S course 1993-94 that the candidates
applying for the course should be completed 17 years of age as on 31.12.1993 is invalid and direct the Respondents to consider the application
submitted by the Petitioner for admission to the M.B.B.S course 1993-1994 without insisiting on the age qualification prescribed in the said
prospectus....
W.M.P. No. 25645 of 1993 has been filed to amend the prayer in W.P. 15231 of 1993, and after amendment, the prayer is to the following
effect.
...to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ declaring that Clause 12 of the prospectus for admission to the M.B.B.S course
1993-1994 and the recommendation of the Medical Council dated March 1981 that the candidates applying for first year M.B.B.S course should
complete 17 years of age as on 31.12.1993 is invalid and direct the Respondents to consider the application submitted by the Petitioner for
admission to the M.B.B.S course 1993-94 without insisting on the age qualification prescribed by the Respondents....
The prayer in W.P. No. 16400 of 1993 is as follows:
...to issue a writ of declaration declaring Rule l(i) of the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India fixing the minimum age limit for admission to
the M.B.B.S. course as illegal and unconstitutional and void ab-initio....
In both these writ petitions, Clause 12 of the Prospectus issued for H.S.C. students for admission into professional courses in Tamil Nadu
MBBS/BDS/B. Pharm. etc. which prescribes ''age limit'' is challenged. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 15231 of 1993 will be 16 years 1 month and 5
days whereas a candidate seeking admission to M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1993-94 should have completed 17 years as on
31.12.1993, i.e. the Petitioner in W.P. 15231 of 1993 will be short of 25 days and the Petitioner in W.P. 16400 of 1993 will be short of 32 days
to complete the age of 17 years of age as on 31.12.1993.
The Petitioner in W.P. 15231 of 1993 alleges in the affidavit that the condition prescribed that a candidate should have completed 17 years of
age as on 3.12.1993 to be eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S course 1993-94 is arbitrary. It is also stated that the age limit cannot be
prescribed arbitrarily considering the age-limit prescribed for the qualifying examinations such as Matriculation and the Higher Secondary
Examinations. It is also stated that the basic educational qualification for being eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S course is a pass in the Plus
Two examination and that the Respondents cannot prescribe a different age qualification, contrary to the age qualification prescribed for
Matriculation examination and Plus Two examination, and as such the age qualification prescribed by the Respondents is arbitrary and it has no
nexus with the object to be achieved.
Almost similar allegations have been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition WP.16400 of 1993. It is further stated in the
affidavit that for other professional courses i.e. for engineering, agricultural etc. no age limit is prescribed and that the age limit fixed for M.B.B.S
course is highly irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
We have carefully considered the arguments of Mr. V. Selvaraj, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. 15231 of 1993, Mr.
Ramajegadeesan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. 16400 of 1993 and of Mr. V. Raghupathy, learned Additional Government Pleader
for the Respondents. Mr. V. Selvaraj, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. 15231 of 1993 feebly contends that the Regulation framed
by the Medical Council of India, in so far as this case is concerned, is not valid. However, the Learned Counsel is not able to persuade this Court
to hold that Regulation is not valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita
Jain and Others, . Mr. V. Ramajegadeesan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. 16400 of 1993 also supplemented the
arguments of Mr. V. Selvaraj, and also reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition.
In the prospectus, issued for Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Medical/Paramedical 1993-94, Clause 12 reads as follows:
...Age limit:
Candidates should have completed the age of 17 years on or before 31st December, 1993. No request for exemption from the prescribed age
limit will be entertained. Age and date of birth as given in the certificate of H. Sc., C.B.S.E. or I.S.C. alone will be accepted....
This Clause is introduced in pursuance of a Regulation made by the Medical Council of India and the powers vested under the Medical Council
Act, 1956. As per Rule l(i) of the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India, the minimum age of 17 years as on 31.12.1993 was fixed for the
candidates applying for Medical Course for the year 1993-94. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita
Jain and Others, had an occasion to consider the scope of the Regulations made by the Medical Council of India and had gone into the question
about the character of the Regulations as to whether they are mandatory or directory. In that case, the Supreme Court has considered Regulations
I and II framed under the Medical Council Act and held that Regulation I lays the condition for qualification for admission to medical courses, that
the said Regulation is within the competence of the Council u/s 33 of the Act and that it is mandatory. So there cannot be any doubt that Regulation
I has got to be followed with regard to the admissions to medical courses.
In Gautham Kapoor v. State A.I.R 1987 Raj 174 the very same issue, i.e. the validity of Rule prescribing minimum age limit of 17 years to be
completed in the year of admission to the First Year M.B.B.S., B.D.S., course was challenged and a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has
upheld Rule 3 in the said prospectus which was questioned therein. In the said judgment, it has been held that Rule 3 therein is not violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When the Medical Council of India has thought that the requisite degree of maturity of body and mind for
entry into a Medical College is not attained normally before the age of 17 years, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot substitute its view. In
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, the
Supreme Court has held as follows:
...As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent
and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make
a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the
working of the systems and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to
be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision,
rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system workable in practice....
In our view, the Regulation of the Medical Council of India, which is impugned in these writ petitions cannot be questioned as violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, since the classification on the basis of age is a reasonable classification unless the age prescribed can be said to be
arbitrary or unreasonable. We are of the opinion that the prescription of minimum age of 17 years cannot be held as unreasonable or arbitrary.
We are not able to agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel that for other professional courses, the minimum age is not prescribed as
17 years. Every professional course is a different and independent course and as such all professional courses, viz. Medicine, Engineering,
Agriculture etc. cannot be treated as one and the same. Students entering the engineering college and those entering the medical college constitute
two different classes so that the prescription of age limit for M.B.B.S. course alone, in our view, is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
At this juncture, it will be apt to refer to the decision of the supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly and Others Vs. University of Lucknow
and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has held that Courts sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not exercise the
jurisdiction lightly, and grant provisional admission to the candidates, especially in medical courses. The Supreme Court, in that case, has held that
when the Government through its Circulars and the Medical Council of India made Rules and Regulations to admit students to various courses to
achieve excellence in medical standards the said Rules and Regulations should not be flouted. As we have already stated, we think that this Court
should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views in academic matters. As such, we are of the view that the impugned Clause in the
Prospectus is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is in consonance of Regulation I framed in the Medical Council Act,
1956. We entirely agree with the view of the Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, in the decision cited supra. There are no merits in
these writ petitions and accordingly, they shall stand dismissed However, there will be no order as to costs.