Patna High Court - Orders
Preety Barkha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2014
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14652 of 2014
======================================================
1. Preety Barkha daughter of Pramod Kumar Paswan resident of Mohalla -
Rajendra Nagar Colony, P.O. Bahadurpur, P.S. Zero Mile, District -
Bhagalpur.
2. Anchal Raj daughter of Kanchan Prasad resident of Mohalla - Mahatma
Gandhi Nagar, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Agam Kuan, District Patna -
800026.
3. Manish Kumar son of Surendra Paswan resident of village - Pirthu, P.O.
Pirthu, P.S. Salaiya, District - Aurangabad.
4. Monica daughter of Rambilash Manjhi resident of village - Rampur
Khareya (Kurmi Tola), P.O. Karwathi Bazar, P.S. Kuchaikot, District -
Gopalganj.
5. Jyoti Lal Ram son of Godari Ram resident of village - Khemmatihaniya,
P.O. Durgmatihaniya, P.S. Bishambharpur, District - Gopalganj.
6. Shiv Shankar Rai son of Suraj Kumar resident of Mohalla - New
Ambedkar Colony Sandalpur Khadpar, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj,
District - Patna.
7. Jitendra Kumar Das son of Dukhmochan Das resident of village -
Bishanpur, P.O. Madhulata, P.S. Raniganj, District - Araria.
8. Abhipray Chaudhary son of Dr. Kumar Amrendra Choudhary resident of
village - Barh, P.O. Barh, P.S. Barh, District - Patna.
9. Sochindra Kumar son of Ramnath Rai resident of village - Rajpur, P.O.
Jamuniya, P.S. Subhadra, District - West Champaran.
10. Suraj Kumar son of Kapildeo Paswan resident of village -
Mathmaheshpur, P.O. Kishori, P.S. Pakri Barawan, District - Nawada.
11. Khusbu Bharti daughter of Late Ram Prasad Mahto resident of village -
Hariharpur, P.O. Karua, P.S. Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur.
12. Kamlesh Paswan son of Sri Rajendra Paswan resident of village -
Itabandh, P.O. Hilsa, P.S. Chandradeep, District - Jamui.
13. Shilpee Kumari daughter of Sambhu Prasad Rajak Mohalla - Lok Nagar
near Horse Hospital, P.S. Jehanabad, PO. Jehanabad, District - Jehanabad.
14. Nandani daughter of Amiya Mandal resident of village - Gandhi Nagar,
P.O. Thakurganj, P.S. Thakurganj, District - Kishanganj.
15. Sandhya daughter of Sri Lalan Baitha resident of Mohalla - Shakti
Nagar Kanhauli Bisundatt, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, District -
Muzaffarpur.
16. Ashish Kumar Anuj son of Hirday Rajak resident of village - Raypura
(Hira Patti), P.O. Balhampur, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.
17. Manish Kumar son of Shambhu Das resident of village - Baradhi Gola,
P.O. Akodhi Gola, P.S. Akodhi Gola, District - Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Exam, IAS
Bhawan, Patna.
4. The Controller Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive
Exam, IAS Bhawan, Patna.
5. Medical Council of India, New Delhi - 110077 through its Secretary.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014
2/15
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15173 of 2014
======================================================
1. Safi Ahmad Son of Rafi Ahmad, resident of Mohalla- Bakerganj Post
Office- Laheriasarai, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna
2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Humane Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of Bihar, Patna
4. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, through
its Secretary, IAS Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna-14
5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive
Examination Board IAS Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna-
14
6. The Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D.), Bihar Combined Entrance
Competitive Examination Board, IAS Association Building, Near Patna
Airport, Patna-14
7. The Principal, Government Medical College, Battiah District- West
Champaran
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15107 of 2014
======================================================
1. Ajit Kumar Shukla S/o Paras Nath Shukla resident of village Khajuhati,
P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj, at present residing at B.S.P.O.
Hospital Room No. 104, Viklang Bhawan, Kankarbagh, Patna
2. Prince Singh S/o Thakur Vijay Kumar Singh resident of Pirbahor Thana
Campus, New Building, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna
3. Ishika Bhaedwaj D/o Priya Ranjan Pandey resident of Mohalla- Sipara,
Near- Gandhi Murti, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
4. Danish Ahmad S/o Nazir Ahmad resident of Mohalla- Shah Fashahat Ki
Maidan, Near Committee Hall, P.S.- Chock, Patna City, District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Chairman, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination
Board (BCECE) I.A.S. Bhawan, Near Patna Airport, P.O.- B.V. College,
District- Patna
4. The Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive
Examination Board (BCECE) I.A.S. Bhawan, Near Patna Airport, P.O.-
B.V. College, District- Patna
5. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014
3/15
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.14652 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Principal AAG
Mr. Partha Sharathi, GA 11
Mr.Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GA 11
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr.Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr.Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
(In CWJC No.15173 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate
Mr.Arif Daula Siddiqui, Advocate
Mr.Asif Kalim, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 7: Mr. Manish Kumar, GP 8
Mr.Prashanth Kumar, AC to GP 8
For the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 : Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the MCI : Mr.Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
(In CWJC No.15107 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramakant Sharma,Sr.Advocate
Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma,Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sharat Kumar Sinha, GP 15
Mr.Santanu Kumar, AC to GP 15
For the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr.Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
------------
8 23-09-2014In the aforesaid three writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the issues of facts and issues of law are almost identical and common, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the above three matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The matter at issue is the admission in MBBS course in different Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar on the basis of Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2014 (in short Examination, 2014) against the remaining 67 seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as also the disabled quota category candidates.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 4/153. The petitioners of CWJC No. 14652 of 2014, 17 in numbers, all belong to the Scheduled Castes. The sole petitioner of CWJC No. 15173 of 2014 and the petitioners of CWJC No. 15107 of 2014, 4 in numbers, all belong to disabled quota category.
4. Indisputably, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to "the Board" only), constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Act, 1995, has been authorized to conduct the combined entrance competitive examination every year for selecting candidates for their admission in 1st year of degree level professional courses including the medical streams in the different institutions in the State of Bihar. Accordingly, the respondent Board initiated the process for conducting competitive examination, 2014 for selecting candidates for the admission in 1st year of MBBS course in all the Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar. The Respondent Board issued a common prospectus for holding competitive examination, 2014 which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 in CWJC No. 14652 of 2014, where in the dates for first stage examination and second stage examination have indicated and were fixed for 13.04.2014 and 18.05.2014 respectively. It appears that originally only 404 seats in MBBS course in different Medical Colleges as State quota was allotted by the respondent Medical Council of India. Subsequently, number of seats were enhanced and total number of seats sanctioned for 9 Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar were 950, out of which 782 seats were earmarked as State quota.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners of all the Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 5/15 above three writ petitions besides other eligible candidates submitted their on line applications for appearing in the first stage examination which was held on 13.04.2014. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the aforesaid first stage examination, all the petitioners were declared successful. Accordingly, all were issued their respective Admit Cards by the respondent Board and they were permitted to appear in the 2nd stage examination, which was held on 18.05.2014. It is further not in dispute that all the petitioners were declared successful in the aforesaid 2nd stage examination when the result were published on 1st June, 2014.
6. In the first round of counselling conducted by the respondent Board, none of the petitioners was allotted any seat in any Medical College as at that time the Board had prepared merit list only with respect to 404 seats in different Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar. However, when number of seats in different Medical Colleges were enhanced to the extent of 782 as State quota, then on the basis of 2nd round of counselling, the list of successful candidates were published by the respondent Board wherein all the petitioners were allotted seats, though provisionally, for their admission in different Medical Colleges. List of allotment of seats to different candidates including the petitioners have been brought on the record as Annexure-4 in CWJC No. 14652 of 2014. Individual provisional seat allotment orders issued to different petitioners on the basis of 2nd round of counselling have been brought on the record as Annexure-4/1 series to the aforesaid writ petition. It appears that in view of certain error detected by the respondent Board, revised list of allotted candidates of Physics, Chemistry and Biology group on the basis of 2nd round of counselling was published on Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 6/15 19.08.2014. As per the case of the petitioners, in the aforesaid revised list also they were allotted seats for their admission in MBBS course in different Medical Colleges as indicated in the aforesaid revised list, which has been brought on the record as Annexure-5 in CWJC No. 14652 of 2014.
7. The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that thereafter the second revised list of allotted candidates on the basis of second round of counselling was again published on 22.08.2014 in which the name of these petitioners have been struck off purportedly on the ground that they have not secured minimum qualifying marks at the second stage of examination held on 18.05.2014. The aforesaid second revised list of allotted candidates published on 22.08.2014 has been brought on the record as Annexure-6 in CWJC No. 14652 of 2014. A notice published to that effect by the respondent Board in the news paper has also been brought on the record as Annexure- 6/A. Therefore, a prayer has been made for setting aside the aforesaid notice as per Annexure-6/A and second revised merit list as per Annexure-6 and for issuance of a direction to the respondent Board for preparation of fresh merit list by including their names after reducing the minimum qualifying marks as fixed in the prospectus as contained in Annexure-1.
8. Initially, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 only resisting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that since none of the petitioners have secured minimum qualifying marks, therefore, their names have rightly been struck off from the list of successful candidates. It is the case of the respondent Board that merit list was prepared by the NIC but while preparing the merit list the Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 7/15 NIC has not taken into consideration the minimum qualifying marks as eligibility criteria indicated in the prospectus, therefore, the mistake had occurred while issuing provisional seat allotment order to these petitioners. According to the respondent Board, once the mistake was detected, the corrective measures were taken and impugned 2nd revised merit list of allotted candidates were published on 22nd August, 2014.
9. A separate counter affidavit has, now, been filed on behalf of the Medical Council of India also resisting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in all these three writ petitions. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondent Medical Council of India, admission in MBBS course is taken as per the provisions of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 which has been brought on record as Annexure R-5/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. It is the case of Medical Council of India that aforesaid Regulation has been held to be statutory in nature by the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, the claim of the petitioners for their admission cannot be considered, as none of the them have secured minimum qualifying marks in the main entrance examination conducted on 18.05.2014.
10. These matters were heard and adjourned on different dates enabling the parties to complete their pleadings. When the matter was taken up for consideration, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners on 27.08.2014 stating therein that the matter at issue, particularly, the claim of the petitioners of CWJC No. 14652 of 2014 came up for consideration before the State Commission for Scheduled Castes, Bihar, and Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 8/15 certain directions have been issued by the aforesaid Commission to the State Government to consider and reduce the minimum qualifying marks, so that none of the seats reserved for the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates remain vacant. The order passed by the aforesaid Commission on 25.08.2014 and again on 04.09.2014 have been brought on record as Annexure- 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and again as Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.
11. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 on 08.09.2014 sworn by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Bihar, Patna stating therein that in view of the observations/directions of the State Commission for Scheduled Castes, Bihar for reducing the minimum qualifying marks for admission in MBBS course, a request letter has been sent to the Medical Council of India on 03.09.2014 for permitting the State Government to relax the minimum qualifying marks upto 32%, so that 67 remaining seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and disabled quota category are filled up from the candidates belonging to those categories. Subsequently a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 on 22nd September, 2014 stating therein that the proposal made by the State Government for reducing the minimum qualifying marks has not been accepted by the Medical Council of India vide letter dated 11.09.2014. Therefore, if the State Government on its own decides to reduce the minimum qualifying marks, then final registration of such medical students may be refused by the Medical Council of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 9/1512. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to examine certain provisions of the prospectus (Annexure-1) itself issued by the respondent Board. Clause 5 of the prospectus for the examination in question provides for reservation of 16% seats for the Scheduled Castes and 1% seat has been reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Apart from that, reservation has been provided for other categories of candidates also, which are not relevant for the present proceeding. However, Clause 5.7 provides for 3% reservation for disabled quota category candidates. Clause 14.4 of the Prospectus lays down the qualification/eligibility for admission in MBBS course. Clause 14.4 (Kha) especially provides that minimum qualifying marks for general category candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects shall be 50% though for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes category candidates, minimum qualifying marks shall be 40%. So far as the disabled category candidates are concerned, for them also 3% seats have been reserved. The persons having disability in lower limbs locomotors have been held to be eligible for the aforesaid reservation. For general category candidates against disable quota again minimum qualifying marks has been reduced to 45 % but the candidates who are physically disabled belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward and Extremely Backward classes, for them the minimum qualifying marks has been prescribed as 40%. Clause 14.4 (Ga) contemplates that condition imposed in Clause 14.4 (Kha) can be amended/modified as per direction of the Medical Council of India. Clause 14.4 (Gha) provides that if any direction is issued by the State Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 10/15 Government/Central Government/Medical Council of India/Indian Dental Council or by the Courts and if any letter is issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar to that effect, then appropriate step shall be taken by the Board.
13. Mr.Y.V.Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 14652 of 2014 has basically led the arguments on behalf of all the petitioners. Mr.Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 15107 of 2014 and Mr.Md.Anis Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole petitioner in CWJC No. 15173 of 2014 have practically adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.Giri, though they have also made some submissions in support of their respective cases. Mr.Giri, learned senior counsel has submitted that indisputably, the petitioners have been declared successful at the first stage as also at the second stage of written examination conducted by the respondent Board. Thereafter, these petitioners were allotted provisional seat allotment order on the basis of 2nd counselling and each of the petitioners have been allotted their seats for admission in MBBS course in the concerned Medical Colleges as mentioned in the allotment order as contained in Annexure-4/A. It was contended that the merit list prepared earlier was revised manually and again in the revised list at Annexure-5 all the petitioners were declared successful and were allotted their seats in different Medical Colleges for their admission in MBBS course against the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes candidates. Therefore, according to him, a legitimate expectation arose to all the petitioners for admission in MBBS course in different Medical Colleges, but to their utter surprise in the impugned second revised Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 11/15 list as per Annexure-6, the name of these petitioners were struck off on the ground that these petitioners have not secured minimum qualifying marks in the main examination conducted on 18.05.2014. It was next contended that if the petitioners are not allowed to take admission in MBBS course against the seats reserved for them, then 67 seats shall remain vacant in different Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar, which would be a great loss to the State.
14. Learned senior counsel has laid great stress on the provisions of The Bihar Reservation (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2003 (Act, 2003, in short). According to him, Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, 2003 empowers the State Government to remove any difficulty if arises with respect to implementation of provisions of the aforesaid Act. It was submitted that 67 seats in MBBS course is a huge number for the State like Bihar. Hence, it was high time that State Government takes a categorical decision for reducing the minimum qualifying marks up to 32% as indicated in the decision of the State Commission for Scheduled Castes, Bihar. According to him, it would not be for the first time that minimum qualifying marks would be reduced for the purpose of admission in MBBS course. It was contended that at many times, minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Medical Council of India were reduced by the different State Governments and that were approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court by different judicial pronouncements. In order to buttress the aforesaid submissions, he has placed heavy reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. and another.Vs Kumari Nivedita Jain and others [AIR 1981 SC 2045], Dr.Ambesh Kumar Vs. Principal, Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 12/15 LLRM Medical College, Meerut and others [AIR 1987 SC 400], The comptroller and Auditor General of India and another .Vs.K.S.Jgannathan and another [AIR 1987 SC 537], Aarti Gupta and others.Vs.State of Punjab and others [AIR 1988 SC 481] as also Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another.Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [AIR 1999 SC 2894 = (1999)7 SCC 120 ]. By special reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arti Gupta and others Vs. State of Punjab and others [AIR 1988 SC 481, Paragraph 2], he has submitted that minimum qualifying marks was reduced upto 25% and even that order/notification was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in particular facts of that case.
15. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, has submitted that the respondent Board is obliged to follow the order/direction of the Medical Council of India and it has followed the guidelines incorporated in the prospectus as contained in Annexure-1. He next submitted that earlier inclusion of name of these petitioners amongst the successful candidates was on account of error committed by the NIC and once mistake was detected, then corrective measures were taken and second revised list Annexure-6 series was issued which cannot be legally faulted.
16. Mr.Kumar Brijnandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India has opposed the prayer of the petitioners by tooth and nail. According to him, Regulation of Medical Council of India is statutory in nature, which is binding to the Board and admission in MBBS course cannot be taken contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation. In support of his contention, he has placed heavy reliance on the judgments Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 13/15 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Preeti Srivastava and another.Vs. State of M.P and others (supra), State of M.P. and others Vs.Gopal D.Tirthani and others [(2003) 7 SCC 83) besides other decisions.
17. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries has submitted that since the request made by the State Government for reducing minimum qualifying marks has not been accepted by the Medical Council of India, therefore, the State Government on its own cannot take any decision for reducing minimum qualifying marks as the same would put the selected candidates in difficulty in future and the respondent Medical Council of India may not grant final registration to those students. However, he concedes that if this Court issues any direction, then certainly the State Government is bound to take fresh decision in accordance with law.
18. In a democratic set up like ours, the Government is supposed to represent the will of the people. Our Constitution provides for reservation for weaker sections of the society. Even the State Legislature has enacted Act, 2003 for providing reservation to those deprived sections of the society for admission in educational Institutions. As per the provisions of Act, 2003, 16% seats and 1% seat are required to be kept reserved for the admission in educational institutions for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes candidates respectively. Indisputably, 3% reservation has been provided to disabled category candidates even according to the counter affidavit filed by the Medical Council of India. 67 seats in MBBS course is a huge number for the undeveloped and poor State like, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 14/15Proving health services to the common people of Bihar is still a far cry. Doctors having MBBS degree are not available in remote villages, as a result of which poor people are compelled to take services of quacks resulting in loss of human lives at many times. If all those 67 seats, reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and disabled quota category, are allowed to remain vacant, then practically it amounts to closure of one Medical College in the State of Bihar. Section 6 of the Act, 2003 empowers the State Government to take such steps or issue such orders in consistent with the provisions of the said Act for removing the difficulties in implementing the provisions of the said Act.
19. On going through the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that the State Government has not taken any decision in terms of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, 2003. Though it has written a letter to the Medical Council of India seeking permission to reduce minimum qualifying marks, but on its refusal it has not passed any further order. If the State Government does not take any decision in terms of Section 6 of the Act, 2003, the decision of the respondent Board cannot be legally faulted. The respondent Board is required to act as per the provisions of the prospectus and the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India, though has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by tooth and nail, but has not been able to dispute the factum that at many times, the minimum qualifying marks were reduced by different State Governments, which were ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Apex Courrt as also by some High Courts including the High Court of Jharkhand. It is also equally true that the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.14652 of 2014 (8) dt.23-09-2014 15/15 19.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 737 of 2013 has fixed 30th September, 2014 as the last date up to which the students can be admitted in MBBS course.
20. After having taken into consideration the entire factual matrix of all the three writ petitions and after having given anxious consideration of all the facts which have been indicated above, all the above three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar as also the respondent Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna to take a fresh decision with respect to the issues involved in these matters in terms of Section 6 of the Act, 2003 at an early date preferably on or before 27th September, 2014. It goes without saying that if once decision is taken by the State Government, the respondent Board shall be obliged to carry out that order and shall proceed in terms of Clause 14.4 (Gha) of the prospectus (Annexure-1).
21. All the above three writ petitions are finally disposed of with the observations/directions made above.
22. The present order has been passed in presence of Mr.Partha Sharathi, learned GA 11, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He will communicate this order orally to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who shall be obliged to proceed further in terms of the observations/directions of this Court without waiting for a certified copy of the present order.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/-
U