Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The appeal is opposed, primarily, by the MCI, and the State of MP has also supported the case of the respondent MCI.

17. Mr. Singhdev - learned counsel for the MCI, submits that despite discharge of the petitioners by the MCI - as early as on 26.04.2017, the same was not acted upon - either by the respondent Medical College, or by the petitioners, and they have continued to ignore the same, even after repeated communications taken note of hereinabove. He submits that there was no interim order obtained by the petitioners - either in their writ petition, or in any other proceedings. Despite that, the petitioners continued to take admissions in subsequent years and undertake examinations at the respondent College. He submits that this was done by them at their own peril, and they cannot claim equity in their favour. He submits that the admitted position is that the petitioners did not undergo the centralized counselling and they were well aware from day one, that their admission in the respondent college were irregular and illegal - being in the teeth of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Modern Dental College (supra).

18. Mr. Singhdev has drawn our attention to the list of medical students granted admission at the respondent Medical College for the Academic Session 2016-17, which was prepared and contemporaneously provided by the respondent Medical College itself. From the said tabulation, he points out that the dates on which the five petitioners were granted admission by the respondent Medical College, were as follows:-

L.N. Medical College, Bhopal (M.P.)"

21. In this regard, Mr. Singhdev has drawn our attention to another communication sent by the Medical College on 11.05.2017. This communication mentions that the DME, Bhopal had allotted 125 students for admission to the respondent Medical College through NEET Counselling at last hours. It stated that 125 students out of 127 names had been sent by the DME towards 85% seats out of 150 seats in all. The relevant portion of this communication reads as follows:-

22. Mr. Singhdev submits that the respondent college does not disclose how the communication dated 07.10.2016 was allegedly sent. However, the communication dated 11.05.2017 shows that the same was sent through Regd. Post. He submits that, firstly, there is no whisper in this communication dated 11.05.2017, of the purported communication dated 07.10.2016, claimed to have been sent by the respondent Medical College. It was not claimed by the respondent Medical College in this communication, that even on 07.10.2016, it had asked the DME to send names of five students - who could be granted admission against five vacancies. In fact, a perusal of this communication shows that the respondent Medical College claimed that as against 127 vacancies, 125 names had been sent and, therefore, the Medical College had filled up two seats through the NEET qualified students, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court that no seat would be left vacant up to the last date fixed by the Supreme Court.