AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ.—This appeal by students who claim to have been admitted to the first M.B.B.S., course for the
academic year 2012-13 by the first respondent Medical college, is directed against the order made in W.P. No. 20190 of 2013, which was
dismissed along with W.P. No. 20191 of 2013, by common order dated 30.07.2013. The appellants filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of
Mandamus, to forbear the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, (respondent University) from
treating the admission of the appellants to the M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2012-13 as illegal and for a consequential direction to treat
the appellants on par with the students of the 2010-11 batch till the Hon''ble Supreme Court decides the Special Leave Petitions in SLP Nos.
27723 and 27724 of 2011 filed by the MCI.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the MCI refused to grant permission to the first respondent institution, as they
failed to provide necessary infrastructural facility to admit the second and third batch of students for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13
and that the appellants have studied in an ill-equipped institution without essential facilities to impart medical education and it is not open to the
Court to permit such students to write the examination on the ground of sympathy.
Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants referred to the communication dated 30.05.2012, by which the
respondent University continued the provisional affiliation for the first respondent institution for the academic year 2012-13 and copy of such
communication was sent to MCI and the State Government. It is further submitted that though this communication was sent during May 2012,
MCI took a decision only on 18.01.2013 that the admissions of the appellants is illegal, when the appellants were admitted to the first M.B.B.S.,
course during June-July 2012. It is further submitted that the respondent University sent a communication to the first respondent institution on
11.02.2013, which pertain to the admissions for the year 2011-12 and does not refer to the admission of the appellants for the academic year
2012-13. The learned counsel referred to copy of a website information of the respondent University, which states that the candidates were
entitled to download the hall ticket. Further, it is submitted that the essentiality certificate has been issued and the State Government shall be
responsible for the students already admitted in the college and the matter is now pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and therefore, the
appellants should be permitted to sit for the examination.
Mr. V.P. Raman, learned counsel for MCI referred to the observations made in the order passed by the Writ Court and submitted that there is
no renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-12 in respect of which, the First Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 1500 and 1664 of 2011,
dated 26.09.2011, directed fresh inspection to be conducted, the said order and direction has been stayed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP
(C) Nos. 27723 and 27724 of 2011 and the same is pending. Insofar as the refusal to renew the recognition for the academic year 2012-13, the
first respondent institution filed W.P. No. 17079 of 2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.08.2012, which
was confirmed by the First Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1903 of 2012, dated 27.09.2012, which was confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) No. 31352 of 2012, dated 11.01.2013. Therefore, it is submitted that all the students were aware of the position and the
institution does not have renewal of approval from 2011-12 onwards and the learned Single Judge rightly refused to grant the relief sought for by
the appellants.
Mr. Anand David, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that the information in the University website is regarding
the re-examination for failed candidates of First Year M.B.B.S., and does not concern the appellants.
We have also heard Mr. P.S. Siva Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, we are at a loss to understand as to how the
prayer sought for in the writ petition is maintainable at the behest of the appellants/students who are said to have been admitted to the first
M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2012-13 by the first respondent institution, despite the fact they did not have renewal of recognition from
the academic year 2011-12. The MCI by order dated 19.05.2011, refused to grant renewal of permission for the first respondent institution for
the second batch of M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2011-12. This order was challenged by the first respondent institution by filing W.P.
No. 13052 of 2011, dated 08.08.2011. The learned Single Judge found that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and remanded
the matter to MCI for fresh consideration. This order was challenged by the first respondent institution by filing W.A. No. 1500 of 2011. This
appeal along with appeal filed by the MCI in W.A. No. 1664 of 2011 was disposed of by the First Bench of this Court, by order dated
26.09.2011, modifying the direction issued by the learned Single Judge and by directing the MCI to conduct fresh inspection and based on such
inspection take a decision as expeditiously as possible latest by 29.09.2011. This order and direction has been stayed by the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) Nos. 27723 and 27724 of 2011, dated 29.09.2011 and the Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Hon''ble Supreme
Court, and the order of stay is in force. The net result being the first respondent institution did not have permission to admit any students for the
academic year 2011-12. For the next academic year, i.e., 2012-13, i.e., third batch of students, MCI refused to grant permission and passed an
order dated 19.06.2012. The first respondent institution filed W.P. No. 17079 of 2012, challenging the decision of the MCI in refusing to grant
permission for admission of students for the academic year 2012-13. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.08.2012, which was
confirmed by the First Bench of this Court, by order dated 27.09.2012, observing that the case as projected by the first respondent institution is
absolutely false and they did not satisfy the requirements imposed by MCI. Further, when the direction issued in respect the academic year 2011-
12 was stayed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the question of renewal of permission for the academic year 2012-13 will not arise.
In the above factual background, the appellants claim that they have been admitted by the first respondent institution for the academic year
2012-13 and they should be granted permission to sit for the examination pending disposal of the Special Leave Petitions in SLP (C) Nos. 27723
and 27724 of 2011, filed by the MCI. The prayer sought for is thoroughly misconceived and wholly not maintainable.
The learned Single Judge while rightly dismissing the writ petition followed various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court wherein the practice
of permitting students to pursue their studies and appear in examination based on interim orders was deprecated, as it would tantamount to
subversion of law leading to serious impasse in academic life (see Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others, and Guru
Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another,
Admittedly, the first respondent institution does not have extension of approval from MCI for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Unless the institution provides all facilities and infrastructure to the satisfaction of MCI, the question of admission of students does not arise and
while the factual position remains thus, the question of granting an interim permission for the students, who have been illegally admitted by the first
respondent to sit for the examination, does not arise.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, found that the institution involved in the said case by
suppression of fact obtained interim orders based on which candidates were admitted to the course, considering the facts, the Hon''ble Supreme
Court held:-
22.....Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is not possible to record a finding that the students were party to the patently wrong and
misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court cannot overlook the fact that none of the appellants has been granted recognition by WRC,
Bhopal and in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17-A of the Act read with Regulation 8(12), the appellants could not have admitted any
student. However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial
process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by
the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken
admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education
to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do
not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this
Court.
It is to be noted that in SLP in SLP No. 31352 of 2012, which was filed by the first respondent institution against the order dated 27.09.2012,
in W.A. No. 1903 of 2012, which declining to grant relief as prayed for by the first respondent institution, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed
that the question of renewal of approval by MCI for the year 2012-13 cannot be considered unless the renewal question for the year 2011-12
pending before the Supreme Court is decided. The said order squarely answers and covers the case on hand and the prayer sought for in the writ
petition filed by the appellants is thoroughly misconceived and the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition. In view of
the above discussion, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.