Medical Admissions Cancelled : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Students' Plea Challenging Medical Council Decision

While issuing notice, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai 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."

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.

Senior Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul appearing on behalf of the student-petitioners submitted that the concerned students were not admitted outside the counselling process. Admission was granted to them only when the vacancies were not filled up by the State till the end.

"In this case right till the 4th counselling, the college concerned only went by the common merit list and the common counselling as directed by your lordships. After 4 rounds were over, there were 127 seats. DME sent a list of 125. There were two vacancies. On the last date, i.e., 7th June, 3 more students opted for it, which made it 5 vacancies. The Darus Salam principle of how vacancies have to be filled was not there. The college wrote to DME about the vacancy, even asked DME to suggest names. There was no response from DME. Then we were enrolled."

Justice Rao observed that -

"In Saraswati case, the same argument was made. The students were approached at night, but no one responded."

Mr. Kaul clarified that unlike in the other cases, in the present matter the college did not admit the concerned students outside the counselling process. He added -

"There they were actually counselling outside of the college counselling."

Justice Rao enquired -

"Here why were the petitioners discharged?"

Mr. Kaul responded -

"MCI says you were not enrolled and today we have done about 4.5 years."

Though the Bench issued notice it was concerned that the admission of such petitions encourage other similarly situated individuals to approach the Court, even when it is categorically stated that it ought not to be cited as a precedent.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order