Madras High Court
The Managing Trustee vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2018
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, M.Duraiswamy, T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.02.2018
DATE OF DECISION : 05.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.A.Nos.406, 410, 414, 417, 420 to 425, 427, 428, 430, 431 of 2017
and
W.P.Nos.9960, 9963 of 2017
The Managing Trustee
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of
Science and Technology Trust
Vallam Appellant in WA 406/17 &
Thanjavur District .. Petitioner in WP 9960/17
Krithika.A .. Appellant in WA 410/17
Darryl Gibson Edwin .. Appellant in WA 414/17
Elamathi.M .. Appellant in WA 417/17
Minor Jaswanth Asirvatham
rep through by natural guardian
and his father Dr.J.Jebasingh .. Appellant in WA 420/17
Manoj Loganathan A.L.K. .. Appellant in WA 421/17
Raghul Davis (Minor) rep by
his natural guardian and his
father Davis C.A .. Appellant in WA 422/17
Mohammed Irfan.S .. Appellant in WA 423/17
Sharmila.T .. Appellant in WA 424/17
Kekhrienezosudhu .. Appellant in WA 425/17
Wabangsenla Longkumar .. Appellant in WA 427/17
Lokesh.J .. Appellant in WA 428/17
Udit Surya K.V. .. Appellant in WA 430/17
M.Abirami .. Appellant in WA 431/17
Praveen.S .. Petitioner in WP 9963/17
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by the Secretary
Health & Family Welfare Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Secretary
Medical Council of India
Pocket 14, Sector 8
Dwarka Phase I
New Delhi 110 077
3. The Registrar
The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 002
4. The Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road
Kilpauk
Chennai 600 010
5. The Secretary
Selection committee
Directorate of Medical Education
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road Respondents 1 to 5 in all
Kilpauk the Writ Appeals &
Chennai 600 010 .. WP 9960/17
6. The Dean
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of 6th Respondent in WA 410,
Medical Science 414, 417, 420-425, 427,
Manamai Nellur 428, 430, 431 & WP
Kancheepuram District .. 9963/17
Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the orders dated 08.12.2016 and 09.01.2017 made in W.P.Nos.42883 of 2016 and 339, 314, 456, 459, 160, 161, 163, 197, 198, 200, 201, 291, 292 respectively.
W.P.No.9960 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to letter issued by the second respondent in LR No.MCI-34 (MC) 2016 dated 1.2.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent approve the 36 students admission.
W.P.No.9963 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings of Ref. No.Ex1 (3)/58835/2016 dated 29.11.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to approve the petitioner's admission in MBBS Course in the sixth respondent College by registering the petitioner's name in the third respondent University Register.
For Appellants/ : Mr.A.L.Somayaji
Petitioners Senior Counsel and
Mr.S.Silambanan
Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Manoj Kumar
in W.A.Nos.410, 414, 417, 420 to 425,
427, 428, 430, 431 of 2017 & in
W.P.No.9960 of 2017
Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Kanagendran
in W.A.No.406 of 2017 and in
W.P.No.9963 of 2017
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadha Sampath
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Special Government Pleader for State
Mr.V.P.Raman for MCI
Mr.P.R.Gopinath for University
Mr.T.Ravikumar for Accountant General
JUDGMENT
T.RAJA, J.
Before the discovery of modern medicine, life was short-lived by humans. The environment was felt with unseen dangers in the form of diseases. Only medicine bridges the gap between science and society. In certain circumstances, a doctor can mean the difference between life and death. The accident and violent crime victims know the value of the doctor and their lives, because their lives depend on the skills of the responsible doctors. People who suffer grave injuries need a doctor to attend to them quickly, because the delay in treatment might simply mean the death. Not only the doctors save the lives of patients from critical ailments like hyper-tension, cancer, cardiac arrest etc., some doctors are indeed responsible for the increased life expectancy and improved well being in society. Many a time people who survive diseases such as sudden cardiac arrest without any notice owe their survival to the doctors whose skills and dedications are vital for their cure. Therefore, it is said that a doctor is a person with extensive knowledge in the domain of medical science, who applies and dedicates his knowledge to identify the medical problem faced by the patient and then uses his skill to prevent or cure it. Some of the doctors, showing their commitment and dedication to the values of life, save the patients from serious illnesses and thereupon further improve their span holding them to live their lives to the fullest extent. While paying tributes to doctors, we call some of them as heroes.
2. However, while making these personalities as heroic doctors, multiple private medical colleges which have cropped up all over the country with the intent for quick profits, throwing the basic standards of medical education to the wind, and many of them do not even maintain proper standards as prescribed by the Medical Council of India while awarding medical degrees. Even sometimes, most of the private colleges hold their own entrance examination for ostensible reasons with little transparency to the admission procedures, exploiting the system with the doctors without high standards and integrity. This finally resulted in producing less meritorious candidates with the doctor's degree. Moreover, the students from poor financial background and far-off places are unable to become doctors, therefore, to ensure reasonable opportunity to secure a seat in any medical college in the State, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)-UG, which is an entrance test for students who wish to apply for medical courses viz., MBBS, BDS in the Government or private medical colleges in India, was introduced only to benefit all the students irrespective of rural and urban, poor and rich.
3. When a gazette notification dated 21.12.2010 was issued by the Medical Council of India amending the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 to the effect, inter alia, that the admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on the basis of the marks obtained in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (for short, the NEET), this notification was challlenged by the Christian Medical College, Vellore in a batch of writ petitions before the Supreme Court, which came to be allowed and the decision of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013 is reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305. After the said notification dated 21.12.2010 was quashed, the admission of students to the MBBS course through NEET was no longer held mandatory. However, on the petitions filed for review of the decision rendered by the Apex Court, finally by judgment dated 11.4.2016 in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore reported in (2016) 4 SCC 342, the review petitions were ultimately allowed restoring the gazette notification dated 21.12.2010 issued by the Medical Council of India that the admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on the marks obtained in the NEET.
4. With this background in view, let us now consider the following three points this Full Bench has been called upon to answer:-
(1) Whether the seats filled up by the sixth respondent Management under the category of Government Lapsed Seats Quota requires Plus-two examination as the qualifying examination or NEET examination, for the academic year 2016-2017?
(2) If the seats have to be filled up by the Government against the Lapsed Seats, what would be the situation and how the seats would be filled up, viz., whether based on NEET examination or Plus-two examination?
(3) Pending the appeals, a decision has to be taken by the Larger Bench with regard to allowing the candidates to appear for the ensuing examinations since they have completed the academic year, after having admitted to the sixth respondent College?
5. While the reference was made to the aforementioned three points, a request was made to the Larger Bench to take a decision pending the appeals whether to allow the candidates to appear in the ensuing examinations since they have completed the academic year, after having been admitted to the sixth respondent college, namely, Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Science, Manamai Nellur, Kancheepuram District.
6. We have also unanimously decided the third point by our order dated 1.11.2017 holding against the appellants that pending decision of the appeals, the subject candidates admitted by the Management cannot be permitted to sit for the supplementary examination commencing from 2.11.2017, citing a reason that the Management was not justified in accommodating the 36 students based on the Plus-two marks merely on the premise that they have collected the fee fixed by the Government from those students, for, the character of the Government seats cannot be the reason, because the Government seats once stand unutilised on 30.9.2016, would become lapsed permanently, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has held categorically and more than once that no admission to the MBBS course shall be made by any college, university, even the High Court under Article 226 and the Apex Court beyond 5.00 P.M., on 30th September, 2016, which is the cut-off time.
7. Now let us focus on the remaining two points, which read thus:-
(1) Whether the seats filled up by the sixth respondent Management under the category of Government Lapsed Seats Quota requires Plus-two examination as the qualifying examination or NEET examination, for the academic year 2016-2017?
(2) If the seats have to be filled up by the Government against the Lapsed Seats, what would be the situation and how the seats would be filled up, viz., whether based on NEET examination or Plus-two examination?
8. The brief background is necessitated for arriving at our answers. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University accorded provisional affiliation to the appellant-Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Vallam, Thanjavur District, which is running the Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences at Manamai Nallur, East Coast Road, Mahabalipuram, Kancheepuram District on 21.9.2016 for starting the MBBS course authorising to admit 150 students for the academic year 2016-17. Out of 150 seats, 97 seats (65%) were allotted to the Government quota and 53 seats (35%) were allotted to the Management quota under the seat sharing agreement entered between the appellant and the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the meanwhile, the Government of India amended the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by bringing in the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016 on 5.8.2016, thereby incorporating a new provision 10(D) with effect from 24.5.2016.
9. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the appellants/students, leading the arguments, submitted that in the light of the amendment to the Indian Medical Council Act, uniform entrance examination (NEET) was introduced for admitting the candidates in the MBBS/BDS course, however, so far as the government seats are concerned, the process of selection through NEET based marks was not insisted upon for admitting the candidates, as per the proviso to Section 10-D of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016 in the State of Tamil Nadu, for the academic year 2016-17. However, the sixth respondent management has taken all possible steps to admit the candidates from among the NEET qualified candidates in compliance of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016 by giving advertisements in various prominent newspapers inviting applications from the NEET qualified candidates for admission to the first year MBBS course for the 53 Management quota seats. However, only 23 candidates who have qualified in the NEET examination have responded and got admitted under the management quota. So far as the remaining 30 management quota seats are concerned, the NEET qualified candidates were not available, but the available candidates who have not secured NEET marks were willing to join the college. In respect of the 97 government quota seats are concerned, the Government had conducted the counselling and allotted 97 seats to the appellant college without reference to the NEET marks and out of these 97 candidates, only 71 candidates had turned up and got admitted. The remaining 26 candidates failed to report for admission pursuant to the first phase of counselling, with the result the 30 management quota seats and 26 government quota seats remained unfilled on the last date of admission on 30.9.2016. Hence it was the grievance of the sixth respondent management that neither the candidates under the NEET qualified category nor the candidates from the government quota were available, as a result the government seats including the surrendered seats could not be filled up on or before 30.9.2016. Therefore the management of the college has filled up 1/3rd of the government lapsed seats from the meritorious candidates based on the marks secured in the plus-two examination. Even after filling up of all the 36 unfilled government lapsed seats including the 30 seats surrendered by the management, 6 more seats remain unfilled, because there were no candidates. Now the students who were admitted by the respondent management are not able to take the examination commencing from 2.11.2017, since their admissions have not been approved by the Medical Council of India and they are withheld.
10. Therefore, the first question that demands an answer from us is whether the seats filled up by the sixth respondent management under the category of government lapsed seats quota requires plus-two marks only or the marks secured in the NEET examination for the year 2016-17.
11. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the students contended that before 30.9.2016, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court, admission to the MBBS course should be completed and no admission can be made after 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016. In view of the cut off date and time fixed by the Apex Court, out of 150 seats earmarked for the academic year 2016-17, 65% of seats were given to the government quota and 35% of seats were given to the management quota. Under the government quota, 71 seats were filled on 22.9.2016. Under the management quota, only 23 candidates who were qualified in the NEET examination were admitted under the management quota. Therefore, although the management had surrendered 1/3rd of the unfilled seats to the Government for non-availability of NEET qualified candidates, the college was constrained to make the admission to the government lapsed seats on the last hours of 30.9.2016 by receiving Rs.3,25,000/- as per the fee norms governed for the government quota seats, as against Rs.12 lakhs fixed for the management seats. Otherwise, all the seats would go waste, which will be a great loss to the students and also to the public at large. Justifying the decision taken by the management, Mr.A.L.Somayaji further submitted that in similar circumstances, our High Court in the order dated 30.9.2009 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7265 of 2009, order dated 27.7.2011 passed in W.P.No.16688 of 2011 and another order dated 1.9.2017 passed in W.P(MD) No.14175 of 2017 has held that at the last minute on 30.9.2016, it would be highly impossible for any medical college to seek permission from the Government to fill up the lapsed seats. Therefore, filling up of the seats falling under the government quota can be made by the college. In such process, even if more admission of students is made exceeding the cut off time limit fixed to the college i.e., 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016, if it is over and above the management quota, the same can be adjusted or reduced in the next year. The said course can be adopted in the present case, which is not going to cause any prejudice to anyone, it is pleaded.
12. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, referring to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, Sri Mookambigai Institute of Medical Sciences and four others, 2011 (1) CTC 41 dealing with the role of the Medical Council of India in the admission of students in medical colleges, pleaded that this Court after going through the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 have ruled that the Medical Council of India would certainly have the power to regulate the admission of students in the medical colleges within the sanctioned intake capacity and if the admission is made over and above the sanctioned strength, it certainly have the power to take appropriate action against the concerned. However, it is also clearly held that the power that will be available to the Medical Council is not to find out as to whether the institution admits the students according to the seat sharing agreement entered with the State Government. The seat sharing is entirely between the institution and the Government and for that purpose, the Medical Council has no role to say as to whether such seat sharing could be made or not and if such seat sharing could be made, what is the percentage of seat sharing etc.
13. Again taking support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65, which has been followed by our High Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust reported in 2016 SCC Online Madras 25304, the learned senior counsel has further pleaded that if any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admisison in the management quota in the previous academic year. Therefore, it is clear that if admissions are made in a medical college in excess of the prescribed management quota seats for a particular academic year, the number of seats in the management quota for the next academic year would be reduced so as to set off the excess admission made in the management quota in the previous academic year. Again placing an order passed by a learned single Judge (RSRJ) in W.P.(MD) No.7265 of 2009 dated 30.9.2009 holding that when the management has not granted admission in its management quota and only filled up the seats which would have otherwise lapsed, there is no need for the management to surrender those seats in the next academic year, for the simple reason that the management has collected only the prescribed fee fixed by the Government. He further pleaded that the respondents cannot unilaterally hold against the management that the management has taken undue advantage by filling up those seats. On the basis of the aforementioned judgments, Mr.A.L.Somayaji contended that when the law has been declared by the Supreme Court that the admission to MBBS course should be completed and no admission should be made after 30.9.2016, the management, having surrendered one-third of the unfilled seats to the Government for non-availability of the NEET qualified candidates, was constrained to make the admission to the Government lapsed seats on the last hour of 30.9.2016 by receiving the fees fixed for the Government quota seats. Otherwise, all the seats would go waste, which will be a great loss to the students. The said action of the respondent management is wholly permissible and acceptable, as per the proviso to Section 10-D of the Act inserted by Act No.39 of 2016, which grants exemption from NEET for the academic year 2016-17 for the MBBS course in respect of the Government seats. This arrangement also has been approved by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.14873 of 2016 etc., dated 22.9.2016 (Soneri Shashank Doctor as Minor through Father and others v. State of Gujarat and others), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the surrender of the quota of seats by the respondents to the admission committee cannot be said to be a colourable exercise of power as alleged by the petitioners, since the rules of the game are not changed by the authorities after the game is started. Therefore, the admission granted by the management to 36 students for the academic year 2016-17 in the Government quota seats receiving the Government fees on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the +2 examination is perfectly valid.
14. Answering the second point, the learned senior counsel further contended that once the appellant management has surrendered some of the seats in their quota to the Government finding that there were no NEET qualified candidates, granting admission to the MBBS course under the Government quota unutilised seats for the academic year 2016-17 on the basis of the marks secured in the +2 examination being the only remedy, no error or fault can be attributed against the respondent management nor against the students who got admission for the MBBS course in the sixth respondent college.
15. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel pleading further argued that when there is a seat sharing agreement between the sixth respondent management and the State Government for the academic year 2016-17 and the provisional affiliation was also given to the management to admit 150 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2016-17, 53 seats were allotted under the management quota out of 150 seats and the remaining 97 seats have been allotted to the Tamil Nadu State counselling. As all the 97 seats have been allotted to the State Government to be filled up through the counselling held by the Selection Committee without the NEET marks i.e., based on the marks obtained in +2 examination, so far as the 53 seats under the management quota are concerned, they should be made only on the basis of the marks obtained by the students in the NEET examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. When the State Government conducted the first counselling on 27.9.2016 and the second and last phase of counselling were conducted on 29.9.2016 and all the students who were admitted through counselling were to report in the college on or before 5.00 PM on 27.9.2016 for the first counselling and for the second counselling on 29.9.2016, no such counselling was conducted thereafter, because the last date for admission was 30.9.2016. However, in the meanwhile, due to the confusion regarding the necessity of NEET examination, the number of successful candidates in the NEET examination was only 20,000 and odd, the college was able to admit only 23 students under the management quota with the NEET marks. So far as the 97 seats under the Government quota are concerned, 26 candidates did not report for admission after the first phase of counselling. Hence the respondent management surrendered 56 seats to the State Government including the 30 seats allotted under the management quota by the communication dated 27.9.2016 requesting to allot the students through the State counselling and the Selection Committee allotted only 52 candidates through the subsequent counselling by the communication dated 29.9.2016. Since the 41 candidates selected through the State counselling out of 127 candidates, failed to report for admission till the final hours viz., 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016, the management was under compulsion to complete the admission process by admitting 36 candidates on the same day from the available non-NEET qualified candidates by collecting the fees as fixed by the Government for the Government quota seats that went lapsed, in order to avoid the national waste and to minimise the huge loss to be incurred by the sixth respondent management due to the non-fulfillment of seats. As the management was able to admit the 36 students by collecting merely the fees fixed by the Government, as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India and others, (2005) 2 SCC 65, if any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year. This judgment of the Apex Court also has been repeatedly followed by our High Court in various judgments including the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, Sri Mookambigai Institute of Medical Sciences and others, 2011 (1) CTC 41, restating the law of the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar's case, ruling that when the management grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota seats for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the result of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year. While so, there is no specific provision in the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 which enables the Medical Council of India to interfere in these matters.
16. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the students also, adopting the arguments of Mr.A.L.Somayaji, pleaded that when there is a seat sharing agreement between the college and the State Government, it has to be looked as an issue between the institution and the Government, therefore, the Medical Council of India cannot interfere with the said seat sharing agreement. Even if the Government is of the view that in a particular year the college has admitted more number of students in excess of the prescribed management quota, the management quota seats for the next academic year can be reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar's case.
17. Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Ponnaiah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Science and Technology Trust, Vallam, Thanjavur, adopting the arguments of the learned senior counsel Mr.A.L.Somayaji, in addition thereto, placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 7 SCC 353, submitted that the power of the Medical Council of India has been crystallized by the Apex Court holding that the power of the Union under Entry 66 of the Union List is limited to prescribing the standards of higher education to bring due uniformity in the level of education imparted throughout the country, hence, the scope of Entry 66 must be limited to its actual sense of determining the standards of higher education and not to laying down the admission process. Explaining further Mr.P.Wilson submitted that the State being responsible for the welfare and development of the people of the State, the State Government is the sole entity to lay down the procedure for admission and for governing the institutions running in the particular State except the Centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc., hence, the Medical Council cannot issue any order or threat to the institution to face the withdrawal or cancellation of recognition, which is also not permissible in law.
18. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the first, fourth and fifth respondents. Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that clause 2(c)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act clearly indicates that the Government seat means 65% of the seats in each branch in non-minority unaided professional educational institutions and 50% of the seats in each branch in minority unaided professional educational institutions in accordance with the consensus arrived at by such professional educational institutions and the Government. While so, for the academic year 2016-17, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.75, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 23.2.2016, based on which the appellant Trust surrendered 65% of its total seats that comes to 97 seats from 150 seats to the Government quota and the remaining 35% of the 150 seats that comes to 53 seats were earmarked for the institution to fill up the same under the management quota based on the NEET marks, as per the orders of the Supreme Court. Since the counselling was conducted for 97 Government quota seats based on the marks obtained in +2 qualifying examination, on the basis of the Ordinance No.4 of 2016 on 22.9.2016, out of 97 seats, 84 seats were allotted to the candidates through single window system by following the rule of reservation. However, at the end of the counselling, 13 seats in the Government quota remained vacant. In the meanwhile, the management had surrendered 30 more seats from their quota to Government on 27.9.2016 and a non-joining report was also received from the respondent institution stating that out of 84 allotted seats under the Government quota, only 33 candidates have joined and again 51 setas have fallen vacant under the Government quota. Adding further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the counselling was conducted on 28.9.2016 for filling up of the 94 seats viz., 13 existing vacancies plus 30 surrendered plus 51 not joined and 83 seats have been filled up and 11 seats have again become vacant on 29.9.2016. Once again the counselling for the above 11 seats was held on 30.9.2016, yet, 7 more seats have become vacant on 30.9.2016. As per clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or any rule or regulation or the Government bye-law, the Selection Committee being the authority to make admission to Government seats in the MBBS course, the sixth respondent has no authority to fill up the Government quota seats, even if they fell vacant after the cut off date viz., 30.9.2016, even though the first, fourth and fifth respondents were not in a position to fill up the vacancies beyond the cut off date.
19. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that even though more meritorious eligible candidates were available in the Government list above the appellants, the official respondents were not in a position to fill up beyond the cut off date 30.9.2016 and the stand taken by the respondent management that no Government allotted candidate was available on the last date of counselling is incorrect. In all fairness, the sixth respondent ought to have informed the fifth respondent that the allotted students have not turned up for admission before the cut off date, as the same could have been filled up with the eligible meritorious candidates of the State merit list. Without informing the Government and taking appropriate permission, neither the respondent management nor the Selection Committee can fill up the Government seats for the sole reason that once the management seats are lapsed and the same also has been surrendered to the Government, they stood lapsed once and for all. Hence, neither the management nor the Selection Committee can fill up the lapsed seats or the unutilised seats simply on the ground that they have received Government fees from the students after admitting them in the Government quota. Taking support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC 652, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that in the Rishabh Choudhry case, the Apex Court has held that in Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 487, it was made clear that no examination shall be permitted to be held for MBBS studies by any private college or association. Subsequently, it was made clear that all such candidates who could not appear in NEET-I and those who had appeared but had an apprehension that they had not prepared well, would be permitted to appear in NEET-II subject to the option to be given by those candidates to give up NEET-I. It was once again clarified that the NEET marks should be taken as the basis for the MBBS studies. As rightly observed by the Apex Court, the students have taken a gamble colluding with the college and since such a gambling chance has been strictly deprecated by the Apex Court, the same plea cannot be espoused by this Court.
20. Mr.V.P.Raman, learned standing counsel for the second respondent-Medical Council of India, replying to the above contentions made by the respective senior counsel for the management and the students, claiming that the Medical Council of India has got power to regulate the admission of students in the medical colleges within the sanctioned intake capacity, referring to Section 10-D of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, emphatically argued that the Medical Council of India being the sole authority to recognise the medical qualification of any student coming from the medical college, is entitled to refuse recognition of the medical qualification as per sub-section (3) of Section 10-B of the Indian Medical Council Act dealing with the present situation, where any medical college increased its admission capacity in any course of study, except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A. While so, when the respondent management has admitted that they had filled up 36 seats with the candidates based on the marks secured by them in the +2 examination, instead of the marks secured by the candidates in the NEET examination, merely for the lame reason that out of 127 seats, 41 candidates selected through the State counselling failed to report for admission till 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016, hence, the 41 seats went lapsed, therefore the management was under compulsion to complete the admission process by admitting 36 students on the same day before 5.00 PM from the non-NEET qualified candidates with the collection of fees fixed by the Government, is wholly a drama enacted by the management. Hence, the Medical Council has got sufficient power under Section 10-B(3) to regulate the admission of students in the medical colleges within the sanctioned intake capacity. On the other hand, if the admission is made over and above the sanctioned strength, the Medical Council would certainly have the power to take appropriate action against the concerned college. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly valid.
21. Again replying to the justification made by the management that they have collected the fees as fixed by the Government for the Government quota seats under the lapsed seats category in order to avoid the national waste, Mr.V.P.Raman submitted that earlier the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 6.9.2017, considering the affidavit filed by one Mr.P.Balashanmugam on behalf of his ward Ms.B.Charumathi in W.P.No.44176 of 2016 and another affidavit filed by one Mr.M.Ravichandran on behalf of his ward Ms.R.Sandhya in W.P.No.44177 of 2016, has come to the conclusion that the college had received Rs.10 lakhs as against Rs.2,50,000/- fixed by the Government. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court, prima facie, being satisfied with the contention that the college had collected Rs.10 lakhs, which is not the Government fees for the Government quota seats, ordered for the audit of the accounts of the college forensically by an independent agency. By virtue of the order, the accounts of the college also have been forensically audited by the Accountant General as a special case. Accordingly, the parents and the students concerned were separately interviewed and their statements were recorded and finally the forensic audit report also has been submitted along with the supporting evidence for perusal of this Court. A perusal of the audit report clearly shows that the college has collected from each of the 36 students concerned upto Rs.40 lakhs. In view of the forensic report produced before this Court with sufficient statements from the parents and students admitted in the respondent college, it is proved with sufficient evidence that the college has not only filled up 36 seats under the State Government counselling lapsed category, but also received the fees over and above the fees fixed by the Government as per the forensic report. Therefore, the Medical Council of India having power to regulate the admission of students in the medical colleges under Section 10-B(3) of the Act, can refuse to recognise the admissions made over and above the sanctioned intake. When such power to take action against the erring medical college is available, the impugned order is perfectly valid. Therefore, no interference is called for.
22. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent University also justified the passing of the impugned order, as the college has admitted the 36 students without the NEET marks and the said action has also been ratified by the second respondent vide the order dated 1.2.2017.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
24. Initially the Medical Council of India (MCI) published a notification on 21.10.2010 bringing in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for admissions to all the medical colleges in the country to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. As the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test was opposed inter alia that it violates the rights of linguistic minorities to establish the educational institutions of their choice as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India; that the introduction of one National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, although the said notification dated 21.10.2010 was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 305, however, subsequently the said judgment was recalled on 11.4.2016 entertaining the review petitions. Thereafter, the Parliament has amended the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by incorporating Section 10-D, which reads as follows:-
10D. There shall be conducted a uniform entrance examination to all medical educational institutions at the undergraduate level and post-graduate level through such designated authority in Hindi, English and such other languages and in such manner as may be prescribed and the designated authority shall ensure the conduct of uniform entrance examination in the aforesaid manner:
Provided that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court, the provisions of this section shall not apply, in relation to the uniform entrance examination at the undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-17 conducted in accordance with any regulations made under this Act, in respect of the State Government seats (whether in Government Medical Colleges or in a private Medical College) where such State has not opted for such examination.
25. A close reading of the above amended provision Section 10-D shows that the uniform entrance examination at the undergraduate level and post graduate level shall not apply only at the undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-17 in respect of the State Government seats (whether in Government Medical Colleges or in a private Medical College) where such State has not opted for such examination. The aforesaid amendment of Section 10-D gives only one year exemption for the academic year 2016-17 for the undergraduate medical admission. It could be further seen that when the Government quota seats in both the government medical colleges and private medical colleges can be filled up without resorting to NEET marks for the academic year 2016-17, while filling up the seats under the management quota by the private medical colleges, they should admit the candidates only on the basis of the marks secured in the NEET examination.
26. Here only the problem arises. When the Ponnaiah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences was granted approval to make admissions for 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016-17, as per the seat sharing arrangement between the management and the State Government, out of 150 seats, 53 seats have been allotted under the management quota and the remaining 97 seats have been allotted to the Tamil Nadu State counselling. The Ponnaiah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences ought to have selected 53 candidates under the management quota based on the marks in the NEET examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the remaining 97 seats are to be filled up through the counselling conducted by the Selection Committee based on the marks secured in the +2 examination on merit. Now the respondent college was able to admit only 23 students in the management quota based on the marks in the NEET examination. Out of 97 seats in the Government quota, 26 candidates alone have not reported for admission in the first phase of counselling. Hence the college surrendered totally 56 seats to the State Government including the 30 seats allotted in the management quota by the communication dated 27.9.2016 requesting to allot the students through the State counselling and the respondents allotted only 52 candidates through the subsequent counselling by the communication dated 29.9.2016. Again out of the 127 counselling seats, 41 candidates selected through the State counselling failed to report for admission at 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016, as a result the 41 seats stood lapsed. However, on the same day, the management admitted 36 students from the available list of non-NEET candidates on the ground of avoiding national waste and also minimising the huge loss to be incurred by the management due to the non fulfillment of seats.
27. Now the crucial contention made by the respective learned senior counsel for the management and the students shows that since the college had surrendered 53 seats and in turn the management of the college had admitted 36 students in the Government quota seats receiving only the fees fixed by the Government, all these admissions made by the management should be treated only under the lapsed quota seats, hence, they need not follow the NEET marks and they should admit the students for the undergraduate medical course for the academic year 2016-17 on the basis of the marks secured in the +2 examination. But there is no doubt that for the academic year 2016-17, the admission of first year undergraduate students for medical education in the State of Tamil Nadu for the government quota seats in both the government medical colleges and the private medical colleges should be made only based on the marks secured in the +2 examination and so far as the management quota seats in the private medical colleges alone are concerned, they should be made on the basis of the marks secured in the NEET examination.
28. But in the cases on hand, when it is all along admitted by the students and the management that they have surrendered totally 56 seats to the State Government including the 30 seats allotted under the management quota, finally 41 seats remained unutilised/unfilled and out of these 41 unutilised/unfilled seats, the management had admitted 36 students. Now the question is whether the sixth respondent college, having surrendered both the seats under the Government quota and the management quota to the State Government, can make admission in the seats which remained unutilised/unfilled without getting prior permission. As the management unilaterally without any permission has filled up all the 36 unutilised/unfilled seats under the management quota, it should be only on the basis of the NEET marks, which has not been done. The respective learned senior counsel for the appellants/students and the management repeatedly referred to the seats filled up by them as lapsed seats or lapsed category seats. In our considered view, it would be a misnomer to refer to the seats filled up by the management as 'lapsed seats', inasmuch as the correct terminology to be used is the seats which remained unutilised/unfilled as on 30.09.2016. The management having filled up the unutilised/unfilled seats as on 30.09.2016, without adopting the scores obtained by the candidates in the NEET examination, the refusal to approve those admissions by the Medical Council of India and the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and the consequential direction to discharge all the 36 students, were well justified.
29. Secondly, the second contention made by the respective learned senior counsel for the management and the students, taking support of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar's case holding that if any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of the prescribed quota, the management quota seats for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota made in the previous academic year, also further makes their position clear that they themselves have arbitrarily and unilaterally admitted the 36 students in the management quota without following the NEET marks.
30. As mentioned above, since the admission of students to the undergraduate level of medical education in the management quota for the academic year 2016-17 has to be done on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the NEET examination, the management has clearly and categorically admitted that they have given admission to the 36 candidates under the management quota unilaterally, hence, the Medical Council of India is fully empowered to refuse recognition of the medical qualification obtained by such candidates, as per Section 10-B of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which reads thus:-
10-B. Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases.-- (1) Where any medical college is established except with the provisions of section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall be a recognised 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 study or training) except with the previsou permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognised 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 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be a recognised 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.
31. Section 10-B of the Act relates to non-recognition of the medical qualification in certain cases. Sub-section (1) of that section states that where any medical college is etablished except with the previous sanction of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Act. In the cases on hand, the management has conceded that since no one from the Government quota and from their own quota came forward for admission for the academic year 2016-17 after 5.00 PM on 30.9.2016, they surrendered all the seats to the Government. Therefore, their justification to validate the admission of 36 students on the ground that they will go as national waste, is far from acceptance, since the object of the Government to admit the meritorious students waiting in the merit list on the basis of the marks secured in the +2 examination would be defeated. Such an approach of the Ponnaiah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Science is opposed to the settled legal principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. This also reminds us to the old Chancellor decision in Taylor v. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch.D.426 followed by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253(2) laying down vividly the law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned herein that out of 150 seats, when 53 seats were allotted under the management quota and the remaining 97 seats were allotted to the Tamil Nadu State counselling, after surrendering totally 56 seats to the State Government including the 30 seats allotted under the management quota, the management ought not to have admitted 36 students from the available list of non-NEET candidates.
32. Thirdly, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University in their communication dated 14.11.2016, 29.11.2016 and 30.11.2016 had declined to register the aforementioned 36 candidates, as they had not qualified the NEET-UG16 and are ineligible to be granted admission in the MBBS course. The University further directed that all these 36 students shall be discharged from the MBBS course, since the admission in the private medical college for the management quota ought to be granted only on the basis of the marks obtained in the NEET-UG16. This apart, the writ petition filed by one of the 36 students viz., Ms.P.Ratiba Roshni in W.P.No.1605 of 2017 challenging the communication of the respondent University dated 29.11.2016 was dismissed. Again the Writ Appeal No.242 of 2017 filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 23.1.2017, was also dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge. When the discharged students have not appeared for the NEET-UG16 and wrongly obtained admissions in the sixth respondent college, the reasons for discharge stated in the order dated 29.11.2016 issued by the respondent University are exactly the same as mentioned in the impugned communication dated 1.2.2017 issued by the Medical Council of India. Since the respondent college, after surrendering both the seats under the management quota and the government quota, had no authority to fill up any seats for the academic year 2016-17, the impugned order directing the college to discharge all the 36 students cannot be found fault with, since they have been admitted on the basis of the marks secured in the +2 examination.
33. To sum up, for answering the first point whether the seats filled up by the sixth respondent management under the category of Government Lapsed Seats Quota requires Plus-two examination as the qualifying examination or NEET examination for the academic year 2016-2017 is concerned, as the respondent college has filled up the seats in the guise of government lapsed quota without any prior authority, the same are to be treated as the seats under the management quota that requires the NEET qualified candidates for the academic year 2016-17, which was not done. To find out whether the sixth respondent has filled up the seats in the management quota, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6.9.2017, appreciating the affidavit filed by one Mr.P.Balashanmugam on behalf of his ward Ms.B.Charumathi in W.P.No.44176 of 2016 and another affidavit filed by one Mr.M.Ravichandran on behalf of his ward Ms.R.Sandhya in W.P.No.44177 of 2016 stating that both the writ petitioners had paid the college a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, doubting the claim made by the college that they had collected only Rs.2,50,000/- as fees, directed the accounts of the college to be audited forensically by an independent agency. Accordingly, the independent agency also, after enquiring the fees paid by all the 36 students with their parents, had placed its report with all the supportive documents stating that the fees collected by the college was much higher than the fees collected by the college as prescribed by the Government, when the college has collected a maximum of Rs.40 lakhs from each student. When we heard the matter on 29.01.2018, Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned Standing counsel for the Principal Accountant General submitted that the forensic audit of the appellant Institution as directed by the Division Bench vide order dated 06.09.2017, has been completed and the report along with the annexures were submitted in a sealed cover before the Registrar General of the High Court on 24.11.2017. We, accordingly, called for the report and the sealed cover was opened in Court and we perused the report. In order to afford an opportunity to the parties, we directed the Principal Accountant General to furnish copies to the learned counsels who were appearing for the parties before us. Accordingly, copy of the Report with annexures were forwarded to the learned counsels. While directing the cases to be listed on 07.02.2018, we observed that it is open to the parties to give their response to the audit report in the manner they deem it appropriate, on the next hearing date. The arguments were heard by us on 07.02.2018, 08.02.2018 and concluded on 09.02.2018 and orders were reserved.
34. Though we had granted liberty to the management and the other parties to give their response to the audit report, they have not done so till the arguments were concluded. The forensic audit report of the Principal Accountant General, is a 12 page report with 27 annexures and 4 exhibits. We perused the report to ascertain as to what is the outcome of the forensic audit with regard to the fee collected by the management from the 36 candidates, as the management stated that they had collected fee as fixed by the Government for Government quota seats. The forensic audit report shows that excess fee ranging upto Rs.11,65,000/- excluding hostel rent, caution deposit have been collected; bank statements disclosed collection of fees amounting to Rs.49.50 lakhs from four students through RTGS, which were not accounted for in the receipts books made available to audit, which indicates that the college had collected excess fees ranging from Rs.11.65 lakhs to Rs.27.65 lakhs. Further, the report states that refund of fees were made by the college to 11 discharged students amounting to Rs.3.05 crores ranging between Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs, as against Rs.1.51 crores shown as receipts from those students, as per receipt books and fees credited in RTGS. The report further states that the excess between the refund amount and actually recorded receipt amounted to Rs.1.54 crores, ranging between Rs.7.50 lakhs to Rs.31.25 lakhs. Further, the report went on to speak that the fees collected by the college from each of the 36 students, were upto Rs.40 lakhs from the records made available. The report of the forensic audit speaks for itself and the plea raised by the college/management that they have collected the fees fixed by the Government from the 36 students is false.
35. Coming to the second point that if the seats have to be filled up by the Government against the lapsed seats, what would be the situation and how the seats would be filled up, viz., whether based on NEET examination or Plus-two examination is concerned, the Apex Court has fixed the last date for giving admission to the undergraduate medical course for the academic year 2016-17 at 5.00 PM on 30.09.2016. In the cases on hand, once the cut off time at 5.00 PM on 30.09.2016 stood expired, both the management and the students ought not to have taken a risk in seeking admission without bothering about the consequences, with the result the students have become the victims of circumstance. Although the plight of the students is unfortunate, they cannot seek any succour from this Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the seats filled up by the management under the category of Government lapsed seats quota being without authority, the further examination whether it requires the marks obtained in the +2 examination or NEET examination for the academic year 2016-17, is superfluous. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC 652, wherein it has been held as follows:-
15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed for the present state of affairswhether it is the students or the College or the State of Chattisgarh. The question is really whether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our opinion, the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The College and the State of Chattisgarh have not adhered to the law with the result that the petitioner became a victim of circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against the College and the State of Chattisgarh being a victim of their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped.
16. We were told during the course of submissions that some similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified in the examination. Those students like the petitioner who did not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the College and the State of Chattisgarh took a gamble and that gamble has unfortunately not succeeded. While our sympathies may be with the petitioner and similarly placed students, we cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, only for their benefit.
17. Under the circumstances, we find that no ground has been made out for granting relief to the petitioner. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
36. The respective learned senior counsel appearing for the students pleaded that there are only 16 candidates (14+2), who remain with the institution and require sympathetic consideration by this Court. We find no justification to extend any such sympathy, as this would set a bad precedent.
37. Moreover, the argument of the appellant management that they are entitled to fill up the 36 seats based on the marks secured in the +2 examination is to be outrightly rejected, because the management had no authority to fill up these seats once they surrendered to the Government. Yet another plea that the management had admitted the students collecting the fee prescribed by the Government for Government quota candidate has been found to be false, as per the forensic audit conducted by the office of the Principal Accountant General, pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench. The Monitoring Sub-committee of the MCI after having been informed about the admissions made by the appellant Management, admitting 36 candidates without NEET-UG-2016 qualification placed its recommendations before the Executive Committee of the MCI, which after deliberations approved the decision of the Monitoring Sub-Committee of MCI to discharge 36 candidates, who had been granted admission in the first year MBBS course for the academic session 2016-17 in the appellant medical college, as they had not qualified NEET-UG-2016. In this context, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P & Ors., [(1999) 7 SCC 120], wherein it has been observed that the MCI has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. That the MCI has implicit power to supervise the qualification or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus, there is, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses. Further, it was observed that while considering the standards of education in any college or institution, calibre of students, who are admitted to that institution or college, cannot be ignored. It was further held that if the students are of a high calibre, training programmes can be suitably moulded, so that they can receive the maximum benefit out of a high level of teaching. On the other hand, if the calibre of the students is poor or they are unable to follow the instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand the course which they have undertaken; it may not be possible to reach the levels of education and training which can be attained with a bright group. Here again it is apt to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MCI vs. State of Karnataka, [(1998) 6 SCC 131], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the country does not want half-baked medical professionals. Though this observation was made by the Apex Court in the context of the infrastructural and teaching facilities to be made available in medical colleges, we would be fully justified in adopting the very same reasoning in the cases on hand, as our nation does not want half-baked medical professionals, who have not achieved the bench mark qualification for being eligible to be considered for admission to the medical courses.
38. The learned Additional Advocate General had also pointed out that there were more meritorious candidates available with the selection committee and the appellant management did not inform the selection committee about the candidates, who have not reported for admission. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General referred to the conduct of the management in obtaining the affidavits from the parents of the students, which would be sufficient to read something more between the lines than what meets the eye.
39. Apart from all of the above, if we examine the stand taken by the management, it would clearly show that it is contradictory and mostly destructive. So to say, the management's case is that 36 seats are Government seats, which remained unfilled at 5.00 PM on 30.09.2016 and such Government seats can be filled up without insisting upon NEET-UG-2016 scores. Assuming for the sake of arguments, this plea is acceptable, then the question would be as to who could fill up those seats.
40. Answer to the argument should be against the management as a Government seat can be filled up only by the Government through the method of counselling conducted by the selection committee. Therefore, the MCI was justified in stating that the admission of the 36 candidates were illegal and they have to be discharged forthwith. In the light of this factual position, reliance placed on the decision in the case of P.A.Inamdar etc., and various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2007 are inapplicable to the cases on hand.
41. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we answer the questions referred for consideration as follows:-
(1) The seats filled up by the sixth respondent Management (Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science, Kancheepuram District) cannot be categorised as Government Lapsed Seats and could not have been filled up by the Management by candidates who do not have NEET-UG-2016 qualification.
(2) The expression used by the Management that the 36 seats are lapsed seats is a misnomer, as the correct expression would be unfilled/unutilised seats and such position will arise only after 30.09.2016 and not prior to the same. For such a situation to arise, it is incumbent upon the Management to report to the Selection Committee/Government about the names of the candidates, which were forwarded by the Selection Committee, who did not join the course before the cut off date, namely, 30.09.2016. Therefore, neither the Government nor the Selection Committee, much less, the management have any jurisdiction to extend the time for admitting candidates beyond 30.09.2016 and therefore, the question No.2 as framed does not arise for consideration. Even assuming there were lapsed seats (i.e.,) after 30.09.2016, without the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government/Selection Committee would not be entitled to fill up the same and in any event could never be done by the Management.
(3) Question No.(3) was answered vide our order dated 01.11.2017, holding that pending decision of the Writ Appeals, the candidates admitted by the Management cannot be permitted to sit for supplementary examination commencing from 02.11.2017.
(T.S.S.,J.) (M.D.,J.) (T.R.,J.)
05.06.2018
Speaking/Non speaking
Index : yes
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Health & Family Welfare Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Secretary
Medical Council of India
Pocket 14, Sector 8
Dwarka Phase I
New Delhi 110 077
3. The Registrar
The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University
No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 002
4. The Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road
Kilpauk
Chennai 600 010
5. The Secretary
Selection committee
Directorate of Medical Education
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road
Kilpauk
Chennai 600 010
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
AND
T.RAJA, J.
ss
Pre-delivery Judgment in
W.A.Nos.406 of 2017 etc. batch
05.06.2018