AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Doctors, who have completed their graduation in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Science (M.B.B.S.). Further aspiring to get specialization, they have written All India Post Graduation in Medical Education Examination - 2015 (A.I.P.G.M.E.E.) and secured ranking mentioned in the cause-title to the writ petitions. All these petitioners secured a seat in the second round. They also participated in the third round and improved their chance. But they were not permitted to participate in the subsequent off-line counseling. Their grievance is that they were all meritorious. If they had been permitted to participate in the off-line counseling, they would have secured better course in better colleges of their choice and the fee that was payable by them was less than what they had to pay where they are now selected.
The prospectus or Brochure as per Annexure ''A'' deals with Non-in-Service candidates seat allotment. It provides that the final list of the First Round seat allotment will be hosted in the website and individual allotment will be sent by SMS, e-mail and the candidates are requested to download the allotment order and note the allotment of seat to them in the First Round. In the first round the candidate was given four choices.
Choice 1 provides that if the candidate is satisfied with the allotted seat and the candidate is willing to report to the allotted college, then the candidate will not be considered for further allotment of seats in any subsequent round for any discipline. Such candidates should undergo Biometric verification, pay the prescribed fees and submit the original documents, obtain the admission order and report to the college on or before last date as specified in the admission order. Such candidates are not eligible to participate in the subsequent rounds.
Choice 2 provides that if the candidate is provided with the allotted seat in Round-1, but wishes to participate in the next round, such candidate should pay the prescribed fees and submit the original documents after undergoing Biometric verification and wait for allotment in second round. Such candidate is also eligible to participate in the next round keeping the seat allotted on hold. However, if a seat gets allotted in the second round, the candidate loses his old seat and there are no choices between the seats.
Choice 3 provides that if the candidate is not satisfied with the allotted seat and wishes to take part in the next round, such candidate should submit the original documents on notified dates before second round of online seat allotment and wait for second round of seat allotment. Such a candidate is eligible to participate in the second round, only, if he/she submitted original documents and no hold on previously allotted seats.
Choice 4 provides that if the candidate is not satisfied with the KEA allotted seat and the candidate has got a seat elsewhere and the candidate is quitting and not to be considered for allotment of seats in any of the further rounds, such candidates are not eligible to participate in the subsequent round and there will be no hold on the allotted seat and the earlier allotted seat will get cancelled.
Now in the instant case, the petitioners did not opt for Choice 1. They participated in the second and third rounds. However, they did not get seats of their choice.
The Apex Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others by their order dated 24.03.2015 approved a chart indicating the time schedule for the Postgraduate Medical/Dental Admission Schedule for the academic year 2015-16. It reads as follows:
"Proposed Postgraduate Medical/Dental Admission Schedule (For Academic Year 2015 - 16)
As is clear from the said schedule, last date for joining, for the candidates, who are allotted seats in the third round of counseling was 8th June, 2015. The said schedule also provides last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason from the waiting list and the same was prescribed as 10th June, 2015. The grievance of the petitioners is by about 7th of June, 2015 number of All India quota seats, which were not filled up were made available for being filled up in the offline counseling. These petitioners should have been permitted to participate in that offline counseling and better their chance. Such an opportunity has been denied to them. The result is, less meritorious students have secured better choice both as to the subject and the college and petitioners, who are more meritorious than them were relegated to join the courses, which were not to their liking and which were not according to their choice.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that as the third round of online counseling was over and 8th June, 2015 is fixed as the last date for admission even if seats are available for offline counseling those students, who have opted for seats in the third round of counseling are not eligible to participate in the offline counseling. The reason is such seats have to be filled up only from the students, whose name finds a place in the waiting list. It is the understanding of the authorities and therefore, the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the offline counseling.
In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satyabrata Sahoo and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2977 : (2012) 7 JT 500 : (2012) 8 SCC 203 : (2012) AIRSCW 4630 : (2012) 5 Supreme 296 where at para 27 it has been held as under:
"27. We notice that the seats earmarked for the open category by way of merit are few in number and encroachment by the in-service candidates into that open category would violate clause 9(1)(a) of the MCI regulations, which says students for PG medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of the inter se academic merit i.e. on the basis of the merit determined by the competent test. Direct category or open category is a homogeneous class which consists of all categories of candidates who are fresh from college, who have rendered service after MBBS in Government or private hospitals in remote and difficult areas like hilly areas, tribal and rural areas and so on. All of them have to complete on merit being in the direct candidate category, subject to rules of reservation and eligibility. But there can be no encroachment from one category to another. Candidates of in-service category cannot encroach upon the open category, so also vice-versa."
There cannot be any two opinions about the fact that merit alone should be the consideration in selecting these 50% of seats in the open category. We would have gone into the question as to whether the authorities were justified in not permitting these petitioners to participate in the offline counseling, if the petitioners had approached this Court earlier. These petitions came up for consideration before us on 10th June, 2015. When these petitions were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the authorities submitted that all the remaining seats have been filled up by allotting the seats to the persons in the waiting list. As it was offline counseling all of them have been admitted to those respective courses in the respective Institutions and any order to be passed by this Court, would contravene the time prescribed by the Apex Court. In fact in two writ petitions, which came up or consideration before us a day before an interim order was passed by this Court, those students were permitted to participate in the offline counseling and they were able to get the seats of their choice. But by the time these writ petitions came before us, our hands were tied because of the time schedule prescribed by the Apex Court.
It is in this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admission to a professional course beyond the date prescribed by the Supreme Court or the Medical council of India is not an invariable rule. In a given case, in order to see that a meritorious student is not deprived of a seat in the professional course, this Court has the power to direct admission even beyond the date prescribed. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others, AIR 2012 SC 3396 : (2012) 6 JT 283 : (2012) 6 SCALE 287 : (2012) 7 SCC 389 : (2012) AIRSCW 4073 : (2012) 4 Supreme 511 . In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:
"23. Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the authorities and the students both. The prescribed schedule is to be maintained stricto sensu by all the stakeholders because if one party adheres to the schedule and others do not or there is some kind of lack of communication or omission to make proper announcements and maintain proper records for such counseling, disastrous results can follow, of which the present case is an apt example.
The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over BDS given the high-competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a mark, the admission to course could vary. Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the concerned authorities to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The concerned authorities are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations.
Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been a matter of controversy before the courts. The courts have consistently taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the authorities concerned should adhere to it and should in no circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion, gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardizes the interest and future of the students. Secondly, which is more serious, is that such action would be ex facie in violation of the orders of the court, and therefore, would invite wrath of the courts under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard, we may appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatishgarh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2413 : (2012) 5 SCALE 328 : (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) AIRSCW 3354 , State of Bihar and others Vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha and others, AIR 1990 SC 749 : (1989) 4 JT 320 : (1989) 2 SCALE 1124 : (1990) 4 SCC 624 : (1989) 2 SCR 168 Supp , Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, AIR 2002 SC 3230 : (2002) 7 JT 1 : (2002) 6 SCALE 332 : (2002) 6 SCALE 162 : (2002) 7 SCC 258 : (2002) 2 SCR 228 Supp : (2002) 4 SCT 444 , GSF Medical and Paramedical Association Vs. Association of Management of Self Financing Technical Institutes and Another etc. etc., (2003) 10 SCALE 94 : (2003) 12 SCC 414 : (2004) 2 UJ 807 and Christian Medical College Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2010) 7 JT 46 : (2010) 12 SCC 167 : (2011) 1 SLR 80 : (2010) 6 UJ 2997 .
The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all the concerned parties. Various aspects of the admission process as of now are covered either by the respective notifications issued by the State Governments, prospectus issued by the colleges and, in any case, by the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. There is no reason why every act of the authorities be not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and why due records thereof be not maintained. This proposition of law or this issue is no more res integra and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various judgments which may usefully be referred at this stage. Ref. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2952 : (2003) 6 JT 204 : (2003) 5 SCALE 492 : (2003) 7 SCC 83 : (2003) 1 SCR 797 Supp : (2004) 1 SLJ 348 : (2003) AIRSCW 3636 : (2003) 5 Supreme 473 , State of Punjab Vs. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3006 : (2001) 8 JT 529 : (2001) 7 SCALE 162 : (2001) 8 SCC 664 : (2001) 4 SCT 993 : (2001) AIRSCW 4165 : (2001) 7 Supreme 693 , Bharati Vidyapeeth [Deemed University] and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1943 : (2004) 3 JT 451 : (2004) 3 SCALE 488 : (2004) 11 SCC 755 : (2004) 2 SCR 775 , Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others Vs. The State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1209 : (2011) 2 SCALE 522 : (2011) 3 SCC 617 : (2011) 2 SCR 1071 : (2011) AIRSCW 1565 : (2011) AIRSCW 1665 : (2011) 2 Supreme 285 , Harish Verma and Others Vs. Ajay Srivastava and Another, AIR 2003 SC 3371 : (2003) 1 JT 322 Supp : (2003) 7 SCALE 598 : (2003) 8 SCC 69 : (2004) SCC(L&S) 512 : (2003) 3 SCR 833 Supp : (2004) 1 UJ 355 : (2003) AIRSCW 4817 : (2003) 6 Supreme 706 ."
After referring to the aforesaid judgments, it was held that in rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the Courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate.
Therefore, even in the said judgment, the Apex Court has reiterated the fact that time schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the stake holders including the authorities concerned should adhere to it and should in no circumstances, permit its violation. If it is violated, it amounts to and there is violation of the Court Order and it would invite the wrath of the Courts under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Only in rarest of rare cases where the candidate approaches the Court without any delay and the candidate is not at fault, the Courts can exercise their jurisdiction to extend the cutoff date.
Therefore, in the instant case, as per the schedule approved by the Apex Court, when the seats were allotted to these petitioners in the third round, all of them got themselves admitted before 8th June, 2015 the deadline fixed. In terms of the schedule, the seats, which are still available had to be filled up by students whose names appear in the waiting list. The schedule prescribed by the Apex Court do not provide for the students, who secured a seat in the third round participating in the last round. That is in respect of the seats, which are still available after the closure of the third round. At any rate that was the understanding of the authorities and therefore, these students were not permitted to participate in offline counseling.
The petitioners/students approached this Court on 10th June, 2015. By the time the matter was taken up for consideration by this Court all the remaining seats had been filled up by allotting the same to the students, who were in the waiting list. Therefore, if the Court were to pass an interim order or even final order, such order could not have been passed without hearing those persons, who have been allotted such seats and who were not made parties to these proceedings. Consequently 10th June, 2015 is the deadline fixed and this Court could not have passed any such order, which would have run counter to the schedule of time prescribed by the Apex Court. It is in those circumstances, we declined to pass any order on 10th June, 2015. In fact we had asked the Principal Secretary, Higher Medical Education to be present before this Court. He explained to us their understanding of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the time schedules. In those circumstances, we wanted these mistakes not to be repeated in the next year and therefore, we called upon him to come up with Rules with clarity so that this mistake would not happen in future so that sufficient time gap would be given in the third round of counseling and the offline counseling. Now that these petitioners, in the meanwhile, have approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which in turn has called upon us to pass an order we are passing this order.
In our view in the facts of this case, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for, for the following reasons:
"(1) firstly on the ground that they have approached this Court after all the remaining seats have been filled up in the offline counseling;
(2) Secondly, the students, who secured the seats in offline counseling were not made parties in these proceedings. In their absence, we cannot pass any orders obviously affecting their interests;
(3) Thirdly, by passing any such order, this Court would have breached the cut-off date prescribed by the Supreme Court."
Consequently, in the facts of this case, we find it is not a rarest of rare cases as held by the Apex Court to issue directions beyond the date fixed by the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.
Now that we are disposing of this matter, as suggested on the earlier occasion, the authorities shall adjust the time schedule in such a manner that after the third round of counseling, an opportunity be given to all those persons, to better their chance and to prefer an Institution of their choice and thereafter the remaining seats shall be filled up by the students whose name finds a place in the waiting list. In the process, merit shall not be compromised and meritorious students will have one more opportunity to better their choice both in respect of the course and the college.