CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5166 of 2001 PETITIONER: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: MADHU SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/2002 BENCH: RUMA PAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT:
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
This appeal filed by the Medical Council of India (in short the ‘MCI’)
raises important questions regarding desirability of belated admissions to
medical colleges in different courses, both pre-graduate and post-graduate.
The questions assume importance because filing a large number of petitions
before various High Courts and this Court has become an annual feature.
When time of admission to medical courses arrives, immediately comes to
mind Shakespeares’ Othello, where it was written “Chaos is come again”.
Inevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires
instead of virus. This Court in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board and
Ors. v. Chandan Mishra and Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 77) observed as
follows:
“………The learned Judges of the High Court, if we
may say so in a well-considered opinion expressed
their anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities
administering medical admission in the State to the
need to prevent occasions for repetitive grievances
from the student community and had occasion to
observe:
“Shakespeare in Othello has written “Chaos is
come again”. This Court has witnessed chaos
almost annually when time for admission to
MBBS/BDS courses came….”
Factual position leading to the appeal, which is almost undisputed,
needs to be noted in some detail.
For admission into the MBBS course relating to the session 1997-98,
combined entrance competitive examination was held in the State of Bihar
on 3.8.1997. The examination was conducted by the Bihar Combined
Entrance Competitive Examination Board (in short the ‘Board’). A
combined merit list for the MBBS course and BDS course was published on
7.10.1997 for the aforesaid session. Respondent No.1 was one of the
candidates who appeared at the said examination. She was, however, not
selected for the MBBS course, but she was given option to join the Dental
Course. She accepted the option given and she was admitted. Her serial
number was 4 in the general category. After the first counseling which was
held between the period 26.12.1997 to 31.12.1997, certain seats fell vacant.
The Board decided not to fill up such vacancies, which primarily occurred
on account of selected candidates abandoning the course or not taking
admission. According to the Board, the approach was necessary to maintain
the academic calendar and prevent mid-stream admissions. The admissions
for the session 1997-98 were completed by the end of January 1998. Two
students who were admitted to the Dental Course like respondent No.1 filed
a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna (CWJC No.
5590/98), inter alia, praying for a direction to the Controller of Examination
to admit them against the vacant seats in MBBS course. The petition was
filed on the ground that second counseling was not done and seats were
lying vacant after the first counseling. By order dated 4.12.1998, the Patna
High Court directed the Controller of Examination to admit the writ
petitioners as per the merit list and as per their choice against the four
vacancies existing due to non-joining of students, within a period of
fortnight from the date of the order. Five more students filed a Writ Petition
(CWJC No.11681/98) making identical prayers as were made in the other
writ petition. By order dated 10.3.1999, the High Court directed that all the
vacant seats upto 4.12.1998 for the session 1997-98 should be filled up from
amongst the eligible candidates as enlisted in the merit list.
In Letters Patent Appeal (LPA.439/99) filed by the Controller of
Examination, a Division Bench upheld the order dated 10.3.1999. However,
certain modifications were made in the directions. It was observed that if
any objection was taken by the MCI to the admissions in MBBS course,
such decision should be given binding effect.
It is of relevance to note that the MCI was not a party in the aforesaid
writ applications and LPA. The Controller of Examination vide its letter
dated 6.8.1999 communicated the directions and intimated the factual
position regarding admission of students against “stray vacancies” for the
1997-98 session to MCI. A clarification application was filed in the LPA.
By order dated 30.8.1999 it was observed by the High Court that if any
direction is issued by the MCI, the parties will be at liberty to seek
appropriate remedy.
The Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on
14.9.1999 refused permission to students in respect of vacant seats of 1997-
98 session after 18 months as that would amount to increasing the intake
capacity and would be contrary to the provisions of The Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (in short the ‘Act’). By letter dated 22.10.1999, the
decision of the Executive Committee was communicated to the Board.
The Controller of Examination of the Board cancelled the admissions
of four students (including the respondent No.1) who had got admission.
They were shifted back to the BDS course to which they were originally
admitted.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Board, which was taken pursuant to
MCI’s decision, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Application (CWJC
No.11100/99) challenging the jurisdiction of MCI under the Act to guide the
admission in the colleges. For the first time, MCI was impleaded in the
proceedings. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the writ petitioner that MCI had
no power and authority in deciding the question of admission of the
students. Counter-affidavit was filed by MCI taking the stand that mid-
stream admissions would amount to increasing admission capacity which
was fixed and that was not permissible. Originally, the matter was listed
before a learned Single Judge. Since the earlier order dated 22.9.1999 was
passed by a Division Bench in LPA, it was directed that the writ petition
should be placed before a Division Bench. By impugned order dated
12.5.2000, writ application was allowed by the Division Bench primarily on
the ground that the vacancies remained unfilled due to lapse on the part of
the Controller of Examination or MCI and since earlier directions were
given to admit the students, the order was to be operative. It was directed
that the respondent No.1 should be allowed to complete the MBBS course to
which she was admitted as per the directions given in the earlier order.
Stand of MCI in this appeal essentially is that the directions given by
the High Court are contrary to the scheme of the Act. It would mean that a
candidate would be permitted to take admission into a course of a fixed
duration just before completion thereof. In reality, the candidate would be
pursuing the course with the students of subsequent academic session, and
essentially it means increase in the students’ strength beyond the prescribed
maximum when there is a statutory bar on the increase of the students intake
capacity. Directions cannot be given to act contrary to what is statutorily
prescribed. It is pointed out that directions for mid-stream admissions have
been dis-approved by this Court on several occasions. It was submitted that
by admitting students mid-stream, the statutorily prescribed time schedules
get affected and it is neither fair to the students getting admission nor the
institution. At this juncture, it is to be noted that while issuing notice in this
case while granting leave, it was made clear that whatever be the result of
the petition, the admission of the first respondent will not be adversely
affected. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, submitted that the
result of the appeal would not affect his client. However, his submission was
that there was nothing wrong in mid-stream admissions and even if there
was fixed time schedule, extra classes can be taken by the teachers to meet
the deficiency in attendance. It was further submitted that leaving seats
unfilled is not good for the country as eligible candidates would be deprived
of pursuing the medical studies and it will be a loss to the national
exchequer.
In order to appreciate the rival stands, it is desirable to take note of
few provisions of the Act and Medical Council of India Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (in short the ‘Regulation’).
“Regulation 7(1)- Every student shall undergo a
period of certified study extending over 4
academic years divided into 9 semesters, (i.e. of 6
months each) from the date of commencement of
his study for the subjects comprising the medical
curriculum to the date of completion of
examination and followed by one year
compulsory rotating internship. Each semester
will consist of approximately 120 teaching days
of 8 hours each college working time, including
one hour of lunch.
7(6) Universities shall organize admission timings
and admission process in such a way that teaching
in first semester starts by 1st of August each year.
Section 10A – Permission for establishment of new
medical college, new course of study, etc.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or any other law for the time being in force,-
(a) no person shall establish a medical
college; or
(b) no medical college shall-
(i) open a new or higher course of
study or training ( including a post-
graduate course of study or training)
which would enable a student of such
course or training to qualify himself
for the award of any recognized
medical qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in
any course of study or training
(including a post-graduate course of
study or training),
except with the previous permission of the Central
Government obtained in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
Explanation 1- For the purposes of this section,
“person” includes any University or a trust but
does not include the Central Government.
(2) (a)- Every person or medical college shall, for
the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-
section (1), submit to the Central Government a
scheme in accordance with the provisions of
clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer
the scheme to the Council for its
recommendations.
(b) The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in
such form and contain such particulars and be
preferred in such manner and be accompanied
with such fee as may be prescribed.
10(B)- Non-recognition of medical qualifications
in certain cases:
(1) Where any medical college is established
except with the previous permission of the Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of
section 10A, no medical qualification granted to
any student of such medical college shall be a
recognized medical qualification for the purposes
of this Act.
(2) Where any medical college opens a new or
higher course of study or training (including a
post-graduate course of student or training) except
with the previous permission of the Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of
section 10A, no medical qualification granted to
any student of such medical college on the basis
of such study or training shall be a recognized
medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Where any medical college increases its
admission capacity in any course of study or
training except with the previous permission of
the Central Government in accordance with the
provisions of section 10A, no medical
qualification granted to any student of such
medical college on the basis of the increase in its
admission capacity shall be a recognized medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
Explanation For the purposes of this section, the
criteria for identifying a student who has been
granted a medical qualification on the basis of
such increase in the admission capacity shall be
such as may be prescribed.
Section 19- Withdrawal of recognition-
(1) When upon report by the Committee or the
visitor, it appears to the Council-
(a) that the course of study and
examination to be undergone in, or the
proficiency required from candidates at any
examination, held by, any University or
medical institution, or
(b) that the staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other
facilities for instruction and training
provided in such University or medical
institution or in any college or other
institution affiliated to that University, do
not conform to the standards prescribed by
the Council, the Council shall make a
representation to that effect to the Central
Government.
(2) After considering such representation, the
Central Government may send it to the State
Government of the State in which the University
or medical institution is situated and the State
Government shall forward it along with such
remarks as it may choose to make to the
University or medical institution, with an
intimation of the period within which the
University or medical institution may submit its
explanation to the State Government.
(3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where no
explanation is submitted within the period fixed,
then on the expiry of that period, the State
Government shall make its recommendations to
the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government, after making such
further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that an
entry shall be made in the appropriate Schedule
against the said medical qualification declaring
that it shall be a recognized medical qualification
only when granted before a specified date (or that
the said medical qualification if granted to
students of a specified college institution
affiliated to any University shall be a recognized
medical qualification only when granted before a
specified date, or, as the case may be, that the
said medical qualification shall be a recognized
medical qualification in relation to a specified
college or institution affiliated to any University
only when granted after a specified date.
(Underlined for emphasis)
It is important to note that in respect of certain subjects, the total time
for teaching is also fixed. For example, for bio-physics the time schedule is
as follows:
(a) Goal and objectives: The broad goal of teaching
Biophysics to undergraduate students is that they
should understand basic physical principles
involved in the functioning of body organs in
normal and diseased conditions.
Total time for teaching Biophysics 5 hours
Out of which: 1. Didactic lectures 3 hours
2.Tutorial/Group
discussion 1 hour
3. Practical 1 hour
It may also be noted that under the Medical Council of India
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (in short the
‘Establishment Regulations’) certain qualifying criteria have been
prescribed. Regulation 2(7) reads as follows:
“Regulation 2(7)- that the person provides two
performance bank guarantees from a Scheduled
Commercial Bank valid for a period of five years,
in favour of the Medical Council of India, New
Delhi, one for a sum of rupees one hundred lakhs
(for 50 admissions), rupees one hundred and fifty
lakhs (for 100 admissions) and rupees two hundred
lakhs (for 150 annual admissions) for the
establishment of the medical college and its
infrastructural facilities and the second bank
guarantee for a sum of rupees 350 lakhs (for 400
beds), rupees 550 lakhs (for 500 beds) and rupees
750 lakhs (for 750 beds) respectively for the
establishment of the teaching hospital and its
infrastructural facilities:
Provided that the above conditions shall not
apply to the persons who are State
Governments/Union Territories if they give an
undertaking to provide funds in their plan budget
regularly till the requisite facilities are fully
provided as per the time bound programme.
(underlined for emphasis)
Part II of Regulation 3 deals with educational programme and sub-parts 4
and 5 read as follows:
(4) Educational programme (a) proposed annual
intake of students (b) admission criteria (c) method
of admission (d) reservation/preferential allocation
of seats (e) department-wise and year-wise
curriculum of studies.
(5) Education programme – (a) department-wise
and service-wise functional requirements, and (b)
area distribution and room-wise seating capability.
(underlined for emphasis)
Regulation 7 deals with Report of the MCI which reads as follows:
“Regulation 7(a)- After examining the application
and after conducting necessary physical
inspections, the Medical Council shall send to the
Central Government a factual report stating –
(1) That the applicant fulfils the eligibility
and qualifying criteria.
(2) That the person has a feasible and time
bound programme to set up the proposed
medical college along with required
infrastructural facilities including adequate
hostels facilities separate for boys and girls,
and as prescribed by the Council,
commensurate with the proposed intake of
students, so as to complete the medical
college within a period of four years from
the date of grant of permission.
(3) That the person has a feasible and time
bound expansion programme to provide
additional beds and infrastructural facilities,
as prescribed by the Medical Council of
India, by way of upgradation of the existing
hospital or by way of establishment of new
hospital or both and further that the existing
hospital has adequate clinical material for
starting 1st year course.
(4) That the person has the necessary
managerial and financial capabilities to
establish and maintain the proposed medical
college and its ancillary facilities including a
teaching hospital.
(5) That the applicant has a feasible and
time bound programme for recruitment of
faculty and staff as per prescribed norms of
the Council and that the necessary posts
stand created.
(6) That the applicant has appointed staff
for the 1st year as per MCI norms.
(7) That the applicant has not admitted
any students.
(8) Deficiencies, if any, in the
infrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out
indicating whether these are remediable or
not.
(b) The recommendation of the Council whether
Letter of Intent should be issued and if so, the
number of seats per academic year should also be
recommended. The Council shall recommend a
time bound programme for the establishment of the
medical college and expansion of the hospital
facilities. This recommendation will also include a
clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to
be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural
facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty
and staff before admitting the first batch of
students. The recommendation will also define
annual targets to be achieved by the person to
commensurate with the intake of students during
the following years.
(c) Where the Council recommends for not
issuing of Letter of Intent, it shall furnish to the
Central Government-
(i) its reasons for not granting the Central
Government permission;
(ii) documents/facts on the basis of which
the Council recommends the disapproval of
the scheme.
(d) The recommendation of the Council shall be
in Form-4.
(underlined for emphasis)
So far as Regulations are concerned, the highlighted aspects are
relevant for deciding the question as to the desirability of fixing a time limit
for admission and stop any admission thereafter. For the MBBS course as
noted above, the total duration is 4 years of 9 semesters.
Section 10-A, Explanation 2 defines ‘admission capacity’ which reads
as follows:
“Explanation 2- For the purposes of this section,
‘admission capacity’ in relation to any course of
study or training (including post-graduate course
of study or training) in a medical college, means
the maximum number of students that may be
fixed by the Council from time to time for being
admitted to such course or training.”
As the definition of “admission capacity” shows it is the maximum number
of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being
admitted to the course and training. By carrying forward the unfilled seats
from one year to the subsequent year, there is necessarily increase in the
number of seats i.e. admission capacity. Section 10-B frowns upon such
admissions beyond the prescribed limit. In fact, there is a possibility of de-
recognition under Section 19.
At this juncture, few decisions of this Court dealing with somewhat
similar situations need to be noted.
In Dr. Indu Kant etc.etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 Supp (2)
SCC 71), it was observed as follows:
“We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
entire facts and circumstances of the case. We
have already held that the rule laying down the
minimum percentage of marks in the entrance
examination is valid and no direction can be given
to the State Government to fill up any vacant seats
by the candidates securing less than the minimum
qualifying marks. We had of course, made a
recommendation to the State Government in
respect of the vacant seats of post-graduate courses
for 1992, but we find no valid justification to make
such recommendation in respect of the candidates
of the earlier years of 1990 or 1991. The candidates
who had not secured the minimum qualifying
marks in the years 1990 or 1991 had an opportunity
to appear in the entrance examination of 1992 and
to make up the deficiency. We find justification in
the difficulties pointed out by the State
Government in doing so. Granting admission to
the candidates of 1990 and 1991 batch now and to
allow them to join with the batch of 1992 is bound
to increase the total strength of post-graduate
students in 1992. This would not only be in
violation of the directions of the Medical Council
of India, but would also put an additional financial
burden on the State Government. In any case, the
State Government itself is vehemently opposing
such request made on behalf of the candidates of
1990 and 1991 and we cannot give any direction to
the State Government in this regard.”
(underlined for emphasis)
The concept of counseling was noted by this Court in Sharwan Kumar
etc.etc v. Director General of Health Services and Anr. (1993 (3) SCC 332).
A scheme was formulated so that there would be no difficulty in admitting
students at the appropriate time. In that case, an outer limit of 30th
September was fixed for 15% of all India quota.
In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 supp. (1) SCC
593), it was observed that in respect of a technical course, to admit a student
four months after the commencement would not at all be correct.
In State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta and Ors.
(1993 Supp (1) SCC 594), the view in Dr. Subodh’s case (supra) was re-
iterated. It was observed as under:
“It is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad
that the courses were started from October 30,
1990 and in terms of the orders of this Court it
shall be deemed to have been commenced from
May 2, 1990, the direction as given in the
impugned judgments for admission after more than
a year, is illegal. To maintain excellence in the
academic courses, the delay defeats the claim for
admission, though posts are vacant. In Pramod
Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India (1991 (2)
SCC 179) this Court held that the course for the
year 1991 is almost completed and it would not be
proper to allow admission belatedly. In Dr.
Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. there was a delay
of four months in giving admission, and this Court
held that, “even according to Mr. Pandey the
course has started in September for the session.
This is technical course and to admit a student four
months after the commencement would not at all
be correct.”
(underlined for emphasis)
In para 14, the desirability of commencing the course on schedule and
completing the same within the schedule was stressed in the following
words:
“Considering from this point of view, to maintain
excellence the courses have to be commenced on
schedule and be completed within the schedule so
that the students would have full opportunity to
study full course to reach their excellence and
come at par excellence. Admission in the mid-
stream would disturb the courses and also work as
a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve
excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point
of view we are of the considered opinion that
vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a
ground to give admission and direction by the High
Court to admit the candidates into those vacant
seats cannot be sustained.”
(underlined for emphasis)
In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Renuka Singla and Ors. (1994 (1) SCC
175), 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.
(underlined for emphasis)
In Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1998 (6)
SCC 131), action of the State Government in increasing number of seats
was held to be illegal. In paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment, it was held
as under:
“The State Acts, namely, the Karnataka
Universities Act and the Karnataka Capitation Fee
Act must give way to the Central Act, namely, the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Karnataka
Capitation Fee Act was enacted for the sole
purpose of regulation in collection of capitation fee
by colleges and for that, the State Government is
empowered to fix the maximum number of
students that can be admitted but that number
cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical
Council as per the regulations. Chapter IX of the
Karnataka Universities Act, which contains
provision for affiliation of colleges and recognition
of institutions, applies to all types of colleges and
not necessarily to professional colleges like
medical colleges. Sub-section (10) of Section 53,
falling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for
maximum number of students to be admitted to
courses for studies in a college and that number
shall not exceed the intake fixed by the university
or the Government. But this provision has again to
be read subject to the intake fixed by the Medical
Council under its regulations. It is the Medical
Council which is primarily responsible for fixing
standards of medical education and overseeing that
these standards are maintained. It is the Medical
Council which is the principal body to lay down
conditions for recognition of medical colleges
which would include the fixing of intake for
admission to a medical college. We have already
seen in the beginning of this judgment various
provisions of the Medical Council Act. It is,
therefore, the Medical Council which in effect
grants recognition and also withdraws the same.
Regulations under Section 33 of the Medical
Council Act, which were made in 1977, prescribe
the accommodation in the college and its
associated teaching hospitals and teaching and
technical staff and equipment in various
departments in the college and in the hospitals.
These regulations are in considerable detail.
Teacher-student ratio prescribed is 1 to 10,
exclusive of the Professor or Head of the
Department. Regulations further prescribe, apart
from other things, that the number of teaching beds
in the attached hospitals will have to be in the ratio
of 7 beds per student admitted. Regulations of the
Medical Council, which were approved by the
Central Government in 1971, provide for the
qualification requirements for appointments of
persons to the posts of teachers and visiting
physicians/surgeons of medical colleges and
attached hospitals.
A medical student requires gruelling study
and that can be done only if proper facilities are
available in a medical college and the hospital
attached to it has to be well equipped and the
teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent
enough that when a medical student comes out, he
is perfect in the science of treatment of human
beings and is not found wanting in any way. The
country does not want half-baked medical
professionals coming out of medical colleges when
they did not have full facilities of teaching and
were not exposed to the patients and their ailments
during the course of their study. The Medical
Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate
the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it
and does not wish to take any action of
withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges
violating the regulation. Henceforth, however,
these medical colleges must restrict the number of
admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After
the insertion of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in
the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has
framed regulations with the previous approval of
the Central Government which were published in
the Gazette of India dated 29.9.1993 (though the
notification is dated 20.9.1993). Any medical
college or institution which wishes to increase the
admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses
(including diploma/degree/higher specialities), has
to apply to the Central Government for permission
along with the permission of the State Government
and that of the university with which it is affiliated
and in conformity with the regulations framed by
the Medical Council. Only the medical college or
institution which is recognized by the Medical
Council can so apply.”
(underlined for emphasis)
As regards the desirability of commencement and completion of the
course according to a fixed schedule, this Court’s observations in Dr.
Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and
Ors. (1987 (4) SCC 122) are relevant. In para 6, it was observed that “in all
medical colleges/institutions to which the scheme applies teaching for
MBBS or BDS course should start on the first working day of September
and even those institutions which are outside the scheme might as well
commence their academic sessions from September so that throughout the
country there would be uniformity in that regard.” Similar directions were
given for the post-graduate course. The directions were slightly modified in
Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad
and Ors. (1987 (4) SCC 459) and the announcement for holding the
examination in 1988 was directed to be made on 1st October, 1987.
It is to be noted that if any student is admitted after commencement of
the course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule.
In fact, as the factual positions go to show, the inevitable result is increase in
the number of seats for the next session to accommodate the students who
are admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session.
Though, it was pleaded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that with the
object of preventing loss of national exchequer such admissions should be
permitted, we are of the view that same cannot be a ground to permit mid-
stream admissions which would be against the spirit of governing statutes.
His suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. The
time schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the
student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also
need rest and the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling
requisite number of days would be harmful to be students’ physical and
metal capacity to study. In fact such a suggestion was held to be grossly
inappropriate in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra). In paragraph 15, it was
observed as under:
“The next question is as to when should the
examination be held. Learned counsel for the
Union of India as also the Indian Medical Council
suggested that it could be done in October this year
so that the candidates selected at the entrance
examination could join the 1987-88 session from
November. In most of the colleges, admission in
respect of 85 per cent seats has been completed and
actual teaching has either begun or is about to
begin. By November a substantial part of the
course would have been read. To meet the
situation, learned counsel for the Union of India
suggested that we should direct the colleges and
institutions to have a supplementary course for the
students admitted against the 15 per cent vacancies.
In the absence of consent from the institutions, it
would be difficult to work out that. As it is, there
exists a lot of confusion in the field and we do not
propose to add to it by giving a direction of the
type proposed. On the other hand it would be
appropriate to bring the scheme into operation from
the coming year so that all the preliminaries can be
properly conducted and in regular course the
students can seek admission to the 1988-89
session. We accordingly direct the authorities to
hold the examination in the manner directed, in
June (sic May) 1988. The Union of India, the
Medical Council the Dental Council, the several
States, Universities and Medical Colleges or
institutions who are covered by the scheme are
directed to comply with these orders in time so as
to give full effect to what has been said here.”
(underlined for emphasis)
There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time
schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can
take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the
scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of
the course.
In conclusion:
(i) there is no scope for admitting students mid-tream 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. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. But as was earlier
directed by this Court, the admission of respondent No.1 would not be
affected by allowing the appeal.