Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Medical Council Of India vs Malla Reddy Institute Of Medical ... on 2 September, 2016
Author: J. Chelameswar
Bench: J. Chelameswar
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 8815/2015
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MALLA REDDY INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing c/c of
the impugned judgment and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 20009/2015
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 6721-6722/2015 (With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 35064/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 8836/2015 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office
Report)
SLP(C) No. 17342/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 646/2015 (With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 35063/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 26835/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 8816/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 28351/2015 (With appln.(s) for direcdtions, Interim
Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 8337/2016
(With (With appln.(s) for bringing on record additional documents
and appln.(s) for impleadment as party respondent and Interim
Relief and Office Report)
Date : 02/09/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
Signature Not Verified
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
Digitally signed by OM
PARKASH SHARMA
Date: 2016.09.08
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
17:35:56 IST
Reason: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
1
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Singh,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhatia,Adv.
Mr. Dhawal Mohan,Adv.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur,Adv.
Ms. Vara Gaur,Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv.
Mr. Animesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Rana Prashant,Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
Mrs. Bihu Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna,Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Garg,Adv.
Mr. Abhisth Kumar,Adv.
CA 8836/2015 Mr. P.N. Misra,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shovan Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
SLP(C) 8337/2016 Mr. B. Adionarayan Rao,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv.
Mr. A. Ramesh,Adv.
Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi,Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Vinodh Kanna B.,Adv.
Mr. K.parameshwar,Adv.
(CA No.8836/2015) Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. A. Bagchi,Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das,Adv.
Mr. Ajay Choudhary,Adv.
Mr. Udaditya Banerji,Adv.
Mr. C.U. Singh,Sr.Adv.
Mr. A. Bagchi,Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das,Adv.
Mr. Ajay Choudhary,Adv.
Ms. Usha Nandini. V,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar,S.G. (Not present)
Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG (Not present)
Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.S. Nagar,Adv.
2
Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv.
Mr. M.P. Gupta,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Rajesh,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
For Applicant(s) Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sumanth Nookala,Adv.
Mr. Goli Rama Krishna,Adv.
Ms. Surbhi,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8815/2015 & 8816/2015 The appeals are disposed of, in terms of the signed order. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.20009/2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.35064/2015 None appears for the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8836/2015 This civil appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.8337/2016 The special leave petition is dismissed. Application for impleadment is also dismissed. C.A.No.6721-6722/2015, SLP(C)No.17342/2015, W.P.(C)NO.646/2015, SLP(C)No.35063/2015, SLP(C)No.26835/2015 and SLP(C)No.28351/2015 These matters be listed next week.
[O.P. SHARMA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
(Two signed orders are placed on the file) 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8815 OF 2015 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS MALLA REDDY INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8816 OF 2015 O R D E R These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the two impugned judgments passed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 11.8.2015 in C.M. No.13021/2015 in Writ Petition Nos.7106/2015 and order dated 30.9.2015 in Writ Petition No.7106/2015. The subject matter of dispute in the writ petition is the decision of the Medical Council of India rejecting the request of the respondents in each of these appeals herein for renewal of the permission to admit students in the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 2015-2016. By the impugned judgment certain directions were given by the High Court, the details of which may not be necessary for the present purpose because during the pendency of the instant appeals, this Court by an order dated 16.10.2015 stayed the operation of the impugned order. As a consequence, the respondent could not admit any student in the academic year 2015-16 and that academic year has now come to an end.
4 In the circumstances nothing survives for adjudication. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
…......................J. [ J. CHELAMESWAR ] …......................J. [ SHIVA KIRTI SINGH ] …......................J. [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8836 OF 2015 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS VIGYAN BHARATI CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) AND ANR. Respondent(s) O R D E R This civil appeal arises out of an interim order dated 25.9.2015 in Writ Petition No.16395/2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa.
The dispute in the writ petition is regarding the representation of the petitioners therein (respondents herein) to admit students for MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16. Without going into the details of the matter, it is sufficient to state that certain permissions required to be granted by the Medical Council of India, were not granted to the respondent for the academic year 2015-16. Therefore, the above mentioned writ petition.
In the said writ petition by the impugned interim order, the High Court gave various directions which reads as follows:
“9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and in the light of the judgment referred hereinabnove we are of the considered view that the Union of India at the time of affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ought not to have remanded the matter back to the M.C.I. for 6 further inspection and such inspection/verification if at all required could have carried out by it through any agency and or any committee. We further take not of the fact that admissions to the M.B.B.S course are to be completed by 30th September 2015 and there exists very limited time between now and the last date of admission. Keeping the interest of the students interest of the State as well as the interest of the institution involved we direct as follows:
i) That the Central Government shall granted provisional permission to the petitioner to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-16 which will be subject to further orders to be passed by us.
ii) That the State Government Institution shall start the process of allotment and the admission shall be made by the respective colleges subject to the result of the writ petition.
iii) The allotment and admission shall be made after giving information to the students regarding the pendency of the writ petition and that the admission will be subject to the result of the writ petition.
iv) Neither the petitioner-institution nor any students who are admitted by it shall claim any equity on the basis of approval/permission for admission granted by virtue of this interim direction.
Aggrieved by the said interim order, the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition which eventually came to be numbered as Civil Appeal 7 No.8836/2016 consequent upon grant of leave. On 16.10.2015 this Court by its interim order stayed the implementation of the impugned order with a further direction:
“The implementation of the impugned judgment is stayed. It is further directed that the appellant shall inspect the respondent-Institute within four weeks from today.” The said order came to be modified by another order of this Court dated 30.11.2015 which reads:
“For the reasons given in the application for modification filed by the applicant-MCI, order dated 16th October, 2015 giving direction with regard to the inspection of the respondent Institute is kept in abeyance.
Tag with Civil Appeal No.9336/2015.” In the interregnum between 25.9.2015 and 16.10.2015, the first respondent admitted certain students into the medical course (MBBS) but for such admission the appeal should have been disposed of on the ground that the academic year with reference to which the dispute arose has come to an end.
But in view of the fact that some students were admitted pursuant to the above mentioned order dated 25.9.2015 of the High Court, it is required to be examined as to what appropriate orders are to be passed with respect to the students so admitted. It is obvious from the impugned order of the High Court that the High Court directed the admission of students by the first respondent only on allotment by the statutory body which is responsible for the regulation of the admission in the State of 8 Orissa, created under The Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007.
Some of the students admitted by the first respondent filed SLP(C)No.8337/2016.
In response to a specific query from us, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners-students stated that their admissions were made pursuant to an allotment made by a body created by the managements of the private medical colleges for the purpose of conducting a common entrance examination to fill up 15% quota by virtue of earlier directions granted by this Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (6) SCC 537 and T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2002 (8) SCC 481.
The liberty granted by TMA Pai's case (supra) and the subsequent order by this Court to the Private Medical Colleges to fill up 15% of the available seats in an academic year under the NRI quota is not an absolute liberty. It is subject to certain limitations. One of them is the assessment of the suitability of the candidate on the basis of some transparent examination process. We are informed on behalf of the petitioners in SLP(C)No.8337/2016 that they have chosen on the basis of an examination held. However, no material on record is available in that respect.
9 In the circumstances, even under the impugned orders of the High Court, any admissions made even after complying with the interim order of the High Court dated 25.9.2015 would only be subject to the result of the writ petition and the students or the institution cannot claim any equities.
In the circumstances, in view of the fact that the relevant academic year 2015-16 is already come to an end, we do not see any reason to examine the matter any further. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned interim order of the High Court is set aside. We also record that in view of the fact that nothing survives in the writ petition No.16395/2015 pending before the High Court of Orissa, therefore, the said writ petition also stands dismissed.
…......................J. [ J. CHELAMESWAR ] …......................J. [ SHIVA KIRTI SINGH ] …......................J. [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 10