Madhya Pradesh High Court
Richa Arjariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana
Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18
(Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors),
WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket
Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and
another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors)
Gwalior, 02.08.2018
Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Shri Ankur Maheshwari
and Shri Deependra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government
Advocate, for the respondent/State.
Shri C.R. Roman, learned counsel for the respondent/Medical Council of India.
This order shall govern the final disposal of WP.7852.18, WP.7855.18, WP.7856.18, WP.7857.18, WP.7858.18, WP.7859.18, WP.7861.18 & WP.12531.18.
These petitions are directed against the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Medical Council of India discharging 25 students.
At the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the Medical Council of India that the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 was the subject matter of challenge in WP.No.17806/17 and WP.20675/17 filed by Muskan Samajik Evam Shiksha Prasar Evam Prachar Samiti and one Sakshi Sharma and others; whereby, the said order of discharging 25 students which included eight students who did not figure in the list sent by the Director, Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh and 17 students claimed to have THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) been admitted under the NRI (Non-Resident Indian) category has been upheld. The copy of the order is brought on record. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the order has been allowed to attain finality.
In Muskan Samajik Evam Shiksha Prasar Evam Prachar Samiti and one Sakshi Sharma and others (supra), it was observed:
"(6) The petitioner institution was called upon by letter No.MCI34(MC)/2016-
17/144248 dated 17/11/2016, to give the information relating to admissions made in Medical College in 1st year MBBS degree for the academic year 2016-17 within two days in the format attached therewith whereby besides sanctioned intake, and number of students admitted, the information was also sought as to number of students under Government quota, number of students under Management quota, number of students under Merit quota and number of students under NRI/PIO. Simultaneously letter was also written by the Medical Council of India to the Director Medical Education Madhya Pradesh on 28/10/2016 and 18/11/2016 to send a copy of the consensual agreement between all the Private Medical Colleges/Minority/Non-Minority and Deemed University including the State Government Colleges with regard to seat sharing in MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-17. And method of counselling THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) followed by the State Government in respect of State Government/Private/Deemed University Medical Colleges and to send the list of students selected/allotted for each college by 22/11/2016.
(7) Responding to said communication, Commissioner, Medical Education vide letter No.252223 dated 18/11/2016 communicated list of admitted candidates on sanctioned seats in Government and Private Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for academic session 2016-17 admitted through State Level Combined Counselling NEET UG 2016.
(8) In respect of the petitioner-institution, the State Government informed that sanctioned intake of MBBS seats for 2016- 17 excluding NRI seats were 127 and total number of admitted candidates NEET UG 2016 were 126 and number of vacant seats was 1.
(9) The petitioner-institution also vide communication dated 22/11/2016 had send the list of 126 students admitted to MBBS Course 2016-17 of whom students from S.No.1 to 55 were allotted seats by offline counselling and students from S.No.56 to 126 through online counselling.
Furthermore, the petitioner-institution in reference to communication No.MCI-34(41) (MC)/2016-Med/151111 dated 08/12/2016 had sent another list of 143 students admitted to the MBBS Course academic session 2016-17 on 13/12/2016. That on 21/07/2017 the petitioner submitted 3rd THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) list of 150 students admitted in MBBS Course for academic session 2016-17.
(10) As there was discrepancies in three lists furnished by the petitioner on three different dates the matter was taken up by the Monitoring Sub-committee in its meeting held on 28/08/2017 which took serious note of it and also observed that 8 students, viz., Kapil Kumar Goyal, Sakshi Sharma, Hemant Singh, Shashank Mishra, Hemandra Singh, Srujana Duppalapudi, Pujari and Mokshi Mehta whose names did not figure in the Director Medical Education list and for which college also did not provide any satisfactory explanation, recommended for their discharge. The matter was then placed before the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India which in its meeting held on 30.08.2017 decided:
"The Executive Committee observed that college has submitted 3 different lists of admitted students for the academic Year 2016-17 as under:
(a) College vide letter dated 22/11/2016 has furnished a list of 126 students.
(b) College vide letter dated 13/12/2016 has furnished a list of 143 students.
(c) College vide letter dated 21/07/2017 has furnished a list of 150 students.
The committee also observed that per DME, MP list only 126 students were admitted for academic year 2016-17 of which one student-viz, Shashi Rathore was not found in the list submitted by the college on 22/11/2016.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) Thus, from above it is evident that college has admitted 125 students from the list of DME within the stipulated last date of admission."
(11) These facts belie the contention on behalf of the petitioner that these 25 students which include the students admitted against NRI quota were admitted prior to 7/10/2016 and in accordance with the merit list drawn on the basis of NEET. No cogent material documents have been commended at to establish that the manner in which admission has been given to these 25 students before cutoff date which was extended upto 07.10.2016.
(13) Another contention that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing is taken note of and rejected at the outset. As per the stipulation contained in the communication dated 05.10.2016 by the Medical Council of India, reproduced supra, it was the obligation of the petitioner College to have updated the information about admission, and having failed to give the information about NRI students in response to the notice dated 17.11.2016, it is the petitioner who has to blame itself; because vide said notice the petitioner was called upon not only to upload sanctioned intake and number of students admitted, but also the information as to number of students admitted under government quota, under management quota and under NRI/PIO. The petitioner, therefore, is not justified in contending that they were not required to give the information about the students admitted THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) under NRI quota.
(14) In view whereof, the conclusion arrived at by the Medical Council of India in its meeting dated 30.08.2017 as regard to 25 students (8 students who do not figure in the list of Director Medical Education and 17 students admitted under NRI category whose names do not figure in the first list submitted by the Institute on 22.11.2016) cannot be faulted with as would warrant an indulgence."
Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to distinguish the judgment rendered in WP.No.17806/17 and WP.20675/17 stating that the correct facts were not brought on record of the case, however, we are not impressed with such submission as there is no cogent material on record to justify the action of the institution in furnishing three different lists to the Medical Council of India and a finding arrived at by the committee constituted by the Medical Council of India holding that the 25 students were not from the list given by the Director, Medical Education, State of M.P. In this fact situation, the decision rendered by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP.No.26008/17 in Ms. Garima Sharma Vs. The Medical Council of India and others decided on 20.12.17 is also of no THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 WP.7852.18 (Aman Shaikh Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7855.18 (Pallavi Surana Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7856.18 (Sourabh Laad Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7857.18 (Ishita Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7858.18 (Subeer Saha Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7859.18 (Gurjeet Singh Dang Vs. UOI & Ors), WP.7861.18 (Sanket Baburao Rane Vs. UOI & Ors) & WP.12531.18 (Richa Arjariya and another Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) assistance to the petitioners.
In view whereof, since the impugned order dated 14.09.17 passed by the Medical Council of India discharging the petitioners from the course has already been upheld, the present petitions also stand dismissed in the same terms as WP.No.17806/17 and WP.20675/17.
There shall be no cost.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pd
PAWAN
DHARKAR
2018.08.04
11:01:37 -07'00'