MBBS : Supreme Court Dismisses Students' Plea Against Medical Council Decision Cancelling Their Admissions As "Backdoor Entries"

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi agreed with Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing on behalf of NMC that the impugned order does not merit interference by the Apex Court.

"This is not a case for our interference."

While issuing notice in May, 2022, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai had noted that institutions flout the legal framework pertaining to admissions with impunity and then use the students as a shield to approach the Courts.

"Colleges keep admitting students, they don't follow order of the MCI asking them to be discharged, they go to court and say the matter is pending 4 -5 years, our hands are tied. We see almost half a dozen cases like this…We realise that we have to also take into account that 4.5 years have passed. That's the problem."

On Monday, Senior Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul appearing on behalf of the student-petitioners submitted that the concerned students are NEET qualified and were not admitted outside the counselling process. He emphasised that the admission was not granted based on college counselling, but they had taken part in the Central counselling. Admission was granted to them only when the vacancies were not filled up by the State till the end. The Bench was also apprised that the petitioner-students have already completed 4.5 years of medical education in the concerned college.

"They have done about 4.5 years. They want to know in what direction their life is heading. In our case, factually, the Central Counselling took place; these students are NEET qualified and on the last date there were 5 vacancies."

Mr. Kaul added that similarly situated students in another medical college who were also discharged were eventually absolved by the NMC.

"5 identically situated students in some other medical college were discharged by the MCI. When in an identical situation you have absolved others…"

It was asserted that the NMC has not explained the reasons for treating similarly situated students differently, when the law envisages those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment.

Senior Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, appearing on behalf of the concerned medical college submitted that there were 5 vacancies at the end of the counselling and considering the court's suggestion that no seats ought to be left vacant, the college had written to the Directorate of Medical Education (DME). As no response was received, the petitioners were enrolled.

Mr. Kaul further elaborated on the circumstances of admission of the petitioners. He submitted that right till the 4th counselling, the college concerned only went by the common merit list and the common counselling as directed by the Apex Court. After the four rounds were over, there were 127 seats. DME sent a list of 125 candidates. There were two vacancies. On the last date, i.e., 7th June, 3 more students opted out, thus the vacancies stood at 5. The college wrote to DME about the vacancies and even asked DME to suggest names of candidates. There was no response from DME, and therefore the petitions were enrolled.

Justice Chandrachud asked, "How much have you paid to the college?"

Mr. Kaul responded, "Statutory fee is 7-8 lakhs/ year, I am instructed to state."

The Judge asked the college, "Mr. Mehta, would you be willing to pay a penalty of Rs. 1 crore per student in order to regularise them."

Mr. Mehta submitted, "I will have to seek instructions, Rs. 1 crore is a very large amount."

Justice Chandrachud was of the opinion, "This is not straight (admission) at all."

Opposing the petition filed by the students, NCM's Counsel, Mr. Sharma argued that the admissions were not made on the last date as was being argued, but much later, in September. He also pointed out that in the judgment of the Apex Court in Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., which the petitioners are relying upon, there was an interim order permitting the students to continue with the course. It was emphasised on that in the present case the petitioners and the college were sitting on the fence for almost 5 years. Mr. Sharma stated that there are judgments of the Apex Court wherein it has held that in such circumstances no sympathy is to be shown to the petitioners, especially when they approach the Court with unclean hands.

The Bench agreed,

"Everybody sat quietly for 5 years. The cancellation was in 2016 and you waited till 2018 and then filed Writ petition."

As per Mr. Kaul, the petitioners had sought legal remedy within 3 months of intimation of the cancellation.

NEET-UG for the academic year 2016-2017 was conducted on 01.04.2016. The Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges issued its own advertisement and admitted students on the basis of counselling conducted by it. Thereafter, the Apex Court in a contempt petition held that students would be admitted to private medical colleges on the basis of a centralised counselling process conducted by the States. In those proceedings an undertaking was given that all seats of Government as well as private institutions shall be filled up and no seat shall remain vacant. The petitioners herein registered with the State and participated in the counselling.

The respondent-college participated in the counselling process. Out of 127 seats, 125 of its seats were filled up and 2 seats were left vacant. On 07.10.2016, i.e. the last day of the offline/manual round of counselling, 3 students allotted seats withdrew. Thus, the college was left with 5 vacancies in total. The management of the college wrote to DME (Directorate of Medical Education) intimating it about the 5 vacant seats. As no response was forthcoming, the college went ahead and allotted seats to the petitioners, who were in the waiting list. Eventually, MCI cancelled the admissions of the petitioner, who once made aware of the same approached the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge upheld the dismissal order on the ground that the petitioner was not admitted through the centralised counselling process of the State Government. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge on the basis of the judgment in Abdul Ahad And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. wherein admission was granted admission outside the counselling process. Before the High Court, the petitioners had relied on Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. W.P. (C) No. 40/2018 wherein considering the fact that the students were not at fault, the dismissal order of MCI were set aside. The same was not considered as the Court opined that the judgment itself noted that it shall not constitute a precedent.

[Case Title: Rahul Soni And Ors. v. MCI And Ors. SLP (C) No. 20300 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order