CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                   [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1071


        CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS.                       A
                             V.
            THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 1925 of 2011)

                   FEBRUARY 18, 2011
                                                               B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.J

    Education/ Educational Institutions:

      Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or    c
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees)
Rules, 2008 - rr. 5 and 12 - Admission - Candidates
belonging to the SC, ST and OBC, securing less than 40%
marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the common
entrance test to MBBS Course for 2008-2009 - Admission 0
of students to MBBS Course on basis of their merit -
Communication of Medical Council of India to discharge
students from MBBS course since they were not eligible for
admission in the MBBS course as per MCI Regulations -
Cancellation of admission - However, students allowed to E
appear in the exam subject to final decision of MCI - Writ
petition - High Court refusing to quash the communication
of MCI - On appeal held: MCI Regulations require the
candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC to secure in
the competitive entrance examination for admission 40%
marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together F
whereas the State Rules, 2008 had prescribed a qualification
standard which was less than that of MCI - Qualification
requirements prescribed by the State cannot be lower than
those prescribed by the MCI - Admissions of the candidates
took place due to the fault of the rule-making authority in not G
making the State Rules, 2008 in -conformity of the MCI
Regulations -Candidates cannot to be blamed for having
secured admission in the MBBS course - They were selected
on basis of their merit and admitted into the MBBS course in
                             1071                               H
    1072    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011} 2 S.C.R.

A accordance with the State Rules, 2008''8nd have pursued
    their studies for a year - In the interest of justice, the
    admissions of the appellants to the MBBS course in the
    college for 2008-2009 not to be disturbed - Regulations on
    Graduate ·Medical Education, 1997 - Clause 5(ii).
B
        The appellants belong to Scheduled Castes,
   Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Education~ly
   Backward Classes. They secured 40% marks in the
   qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry and
   Biology. The appellants appeared in the common
C entrance test for admission to MBBS course conducted
   for Gujarat for 2008-2009, but secured less than 40%
   marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the common
   entrance test. On basis of their merit, they were admitted
   to the MBBS course. The MCI sent a communication to
D the Colleges to discharge the appellants and as they had
   secured less than 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and
   Biology in the common entrance test and were not
   eligible for admission in the MBBS course as per the MCI
   Regulations. Thereafter, the admission of the appellants
E was cancelled. However, on the request of the appellants,
   they were permitted to appear in the preliminary
 ' examination for First MBBS subject to the final decision
   of the MCI. The appellants filed a writ petition. The
   Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
F petition, refusing to quash the communication of the
   Medical Council of India for discharging them from the
   MBBS course to which they had been admitted.
   Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.
        Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
        HELD: 1.1 On a comparison of the minimum criteria
    for admission to the MBBS course lald down In the
    Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1977 and
    the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or
H
CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1073
          OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Payment of A
Fees) Rules, 2008, it is found that both the MCI
Regulations and State Rules, 2008 insist that a candidate
must have obtained 40% marks in the Physics, Chemistry
and Biology in the qualifying examination. The only
difference between the MCI Regulations and the State B
Rules, 2008 is that while the MCI Regulations require the
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes to secure
in the competitive entrance examination for admission
40% marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken c
together, the State Rules, 2008 do not contain such a
requirement. Under the State Rules, 2008 candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
(excluding Creamy Layer) eligible for admission to the 0
MBBS course were required to have 40% marks in the
qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology
and must have appeared in the competitive entrance
examination conducted in the current academic year. As
the State Rules had prescribed a qualification standard E
 which was less than that of MCI, the seven appellants,
 who took the Gujarat common entrance test for the
 academic year 2008-2009, got selected on the basis of
 their merit for the seats in the MBBS course reserved for
 the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
 Backward Classes and got admitted in the college even F .
 though they had not secured 40% marks in Physics,
 Chemistry and Biology in the Gujarat common entrance
 test. The qualification requirements prescribed by the
 State cannot be lower than those prescribed by the MCI.
 Therefore, in law, the order of the High Court is right. G •
 However, this is a clear case where the admissions of the
 seven appellants took place due to the fault of the rule-
 making authority In not making the State Rules, 2008 In
 conformity of the MCI Regulations. For this fault of the
 rule-making authority if the appellants are discharged H
    1074    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A from the M88S course, they would suffer grave injustice.
  On the peculiar facts of the case, thus, it is a fit case
  where this Court should exercise its power under Article
  142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between
  parties. [Paras 10, 11 and 12] [1084-8-H]
B
       1.2 It is found that the appellants were not to be
  blamed for having secured admission in the M88S
  course and the fault was entirely of the rule-making
  authority in making the 2008 Rules and the appellants
C have gone through the pains of appearing in the
  common entrance test and have been selected on the
  basis of their merit and admitted into the M88S course
  in the college in accordance with the State Rules, 2008
  and have pursued their studies for a year. Thus, even
  though under the MCI Regulations, the appellants were
D not eligible for admission to the M88S course in the
  academic year 2008-2009, for the purpose of doing
  complete justice in the matter, it is directed that the
  admissions of the appellants to the M88S course in the
  college during the academic year 2008-2009 would not
E be disturbed. However, the said direction would not be
  treated as a precedent. [Para 14] [1086-8-E]

       Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and
  Anr. 1986 (Supp) SCC 740; A. Sudha v. University of Mysore
F (1987) 4 SCC 537; Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of
  Jodhpur and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 399; M.A. Salam (II) v.
  Principal Secretary, Government of A.P. and Ors. (2005) 13
  SCC 677; Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka and
  Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 131; Delhi Judicial Service Association,
G Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1991) 4
  SCC 406; Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra
    (2006) 7 sec 501 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference:
        1986 (Supp) SCC 740       Referred to         Para 6
H
 CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1075
           OF GUJARAT & ORS.

    (1987) 4 sec 537               Referred to.           Para 6        A
    (1989) 1 sec 399               Referred to            Para 6

    c2005) 13 sec s11               Referred to           Para 6
    (1998) s sec 131                Referred to           Para 7
                                                                        B
    (1991) 4 sec 406                Referred to           Para 12

    c2006) 1 sec 501                Referred to           Para 13

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1925 of 2011.                                                           c
    From the Judgment & Order dated 09.10.2009 of the High
Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 9526 of 2009.

    K.V. Vishwanathan, D. Verma, Neha S. Verma, A.
Venayagam Balan for the Appellants.                                     D

    Amarendra Sharan, Amit Kumar, Ritesh Ratnam, Maulik
Nanavati, Hemantika Wahi, Renuka Sahu, Nikhil Goel, Naveen
Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Respondents.
                                                                        E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. The appellants belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and              F
they have in this Civil Appeal challenged the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil
Application No. 9526 of 2009, refusing to quash the
communication of the Medical Council of India for discharging
them from the MBBS course to which they had been admitted.              G

      3. The facts briefly are that the Medical Council of India
(for short "the MCI") prescribed inter alia in its regulations called
"The Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997" (for
short "the MCI Regulations") that candidates belonging to
                                                                        H
    1076    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
  Classes must have obtained a minimum of 40% marks together
  in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination
  and, in addition, 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology
  taken together in the competitive examination for admission to
B the MBBS course. The State Government of Gujarat also made
  rules under the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational
  Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation
  of Fees) Act, 2007 called "The Gujarat Professional Medical
  Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission
  and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2008" (for short "the State Rules,
C 2008"). Rule 5 (1) (iv) of the State Rules, 2008 provided that
  for admission to a professional college, a candidate must have
  passed the qualifying examination and must have appeared in
  the common entrance test of Gujarat. A notification was issued
  by the State Government under Rule 12 of the State Rules,
D 2008 prescribing the minimum marks in the qualifying
  examination for admission to MBBS course for Scheduled
  Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally
  Backward Classes (excluding Creamy layer) candidates as
  40% in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
E
       4. The appellants had secured 40% marks in the qualifying
  examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as prescribed
  in the notification issued under Section 12 of the State Rules,
  2008. The appellants also appeared in the common entrance
F test conducted for Gujarat for 2008-2009, but secured less than
  40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the common
  entrance test. As the appellants were placed in the merit list in
  the common entrance test, they were admitted to the MBBS
  course in Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad (for short
G "the College"). After collecting information from the College, the
  MCI sent a communication dated 10.02.2009 to the College
  to discharge the seven appellants and one more student as
  they had secured less than 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry
  and Biology in the common entrance test and were not eligible
H for admission in the MBBS course as per the MCI Regulations.
 CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1077 .
    OF GUJARAT & ORS. (A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
The College entered into some correspondence with the MCI           A
and the Admission Committee of the State Government and
on 01.07.2009 cancelled the admission of the appellants on the
insistence of the MCI in its letter dated 27.03.2009. The State
Government addressed a communication to the MCI saying that
the students were admitted in accordance with the State Rules,      B
2008 as per their merit and they may be allowed to pursue the
medical education as they were not at fault. On the request of
the appellants, the College permitted the appellants to appear
in the preliminary examination for First MBBS in July 2009
subject to the final decision of the MCI.                           c
      5. The appellants then moved the High Court under Article
 226 of the Constitution in Special Civil Application No.9526 of
 2009 and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
 High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The High Court held
 that Clause 5.5 (ii) of the MCI Regulations specifically stipulated D
 that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled ,
·Tribes or Other Backward Classes must have obtained a
 minimum of 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology
 taken together in the qualifying examination and, in addition,
 must have come in the merit list prepared as a result of.the E
 competitive entrance examination by securing not less than
 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the
 competitive entrance test and as the appellants have not
 satisfied this mandatory stipulation under clause 5.5 (ii) of the
 MCI Regulations, there was no illegality in the directions given F
 by the MCI to discharge the appellants from the college. The
 High Court also struck down Rule 5(1)(iv) of the State Rules,
 2008 which provided that a candidate who appeared in the
 Gujarat common entrance test was eligible for admission to the
 MBBS course even if he obtained less than 40% marks in G
 Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in. the common
 entrance test.

    6. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants, submitted that the High Court erred in upholding the    H
    1078   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A directions of the MCI to discharge the appellants who had been
  validly admitted under the State Rules, 2008 and the validity of
  the State Rules, 2008 was not under challenge before the High
  Court. He submitted that rule 5 (1) (iv) of the State Rules, 2008
  had been framed by the State Government of Gujarat in exercise
B of its powers under Section 20(1) read with Section (4) of the
  Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or
  Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act,
  2007 and it clearly provides that a candidate who had passed
  the qualifying examination and appeared in the Gujarat
c common entrance test conducted in the current academic year
  was eligible for admission to the MBBS course. He submitted
  that as the appellants had not only passed the qualifying
  examination, but also appeared in the common entrance test
  for the academic year 2008-2009 they were clearly eligible for
  admission to the college for the MBBS course. He submitted
0
  that although rule 5 (1) (iv) of the State Rules, 2008 was not
   under challenge, the High Court struck down the rule as invalid
   in the impugned judgment merely because the clause 5.5 (ii)
   of the MCI Regulations prescribed that a candidate has to
   obtain 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken
E together in the competitive entrance examination on the basis
   of which the candidates were to be admitted and the appellants
   have not secured such 40% marks in the competitive entrance
   examination. He submitted that the mistake in making the State
   Rules, 2008 consistent with the MCI Regulations was of the
F State Government and not of the candidates, who have been
   admitted to the MBBS course in accordance with the State
   Rules, 2008 and therefore the appell(ints should not be made ·
   to suffer for such mistake of the rule making authority. He
   submitted that this Court had adopted a sympathetic approach
G in similar situations where admissions of students were in
   jeopardy for none of their fault in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.
   Karnataka University and Anr. [1986 (Supp) SCC 740], A.
   Sudha v. University of Mysore [(1987) 4 SCC 537], Ashok
    Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others [(1989) 1
H SCC 399] and M.A. Sa/am (II) v. Principal Secretary,
 CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1079
    OF GUJARAT & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Government of A.P. ahd others [(2005) 13 SCC 677].                     A

       7. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the MCI, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment of the High Court and submitted that for
achieving the purposes of the "Indian Medical Council Act,
                                                                       8
1956", the MCI has made the MCI Regulations which are
statutory in nature and unless the State Government and the
Universities cooperate with the MCI in enforcing these statutory
regulations, the MCI will not be able to discharge its statutory
obligations under the Act. He submitted that regulation 5.5 of         C
the MCI Regulations lays down the procedure for selection to
the MBBS course and clause 5.5 (ii) of these Regulations
clearly provides that in case of admission on the basis of
competitive entrance examination, a candidate belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes must have secured a minimum of 40% marks taken                 D
together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology of the qualifying
examination and, in addition, must have secured 40% marks
in these subjects in the competitive entrance examination. He
referred to the marks of the seven appellants and one more
student admitted to the college to show that none of them              E
fulfilled the eligibility criteria as mentioned in clause 5.5(ii) of
the MCI Regulations. He submitted that the MCI, therefore, wrote
to the Dean of the college in its letters dated 10.02.2009 and
27 .03.2009 to discharge these eight students. He submitted that
this Court had repeatedly held that the regulations made by the        F
MCI are statutory, mandatory and binding in character and
admissions to medical courses could not be made in violation
of the MCI regulations. He cited the decision in Medical
Council of India v. State of Kamataka and others [(1998) 6
SCC 131] in which this Court has held that the Indian Medical          G
Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and prevails over any
State enactment to the extent that the State enactment is
repugnant to the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the
MCI Regulations will therefore prevail upon the State Rules,           H
    1080      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A 2008 and the contention on behalf of the appellants that the
  appellants were admitted in accordance with the State Rules,
  2008 and their admissions are valid, even though contrary to
  the MCI Regulations, has no force.

        8. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, appearing for the State of Gujarat,
8
  submitted that while making the State Rules, 2008, clause
  5.5(ii) of the MCI Regulations was lost sight of and as a result
  admissions in the academic year 2008-2009 to the MBBS
  course in different colleges in the State of Gujarat were made
  only in accordance with the State Rules, 2008 and some
C candidates who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned
  in clause 5.5 (ii) of the MCI Regulations got admitted to the
  MBBS course during the year 2008-2009. He submitted that
  for the subsequent years, i.e. 2009-2010 onwards, the State
  Government has provided in the Rules that students belonging
D to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
  Backward Classes must obtain 40% marks in Physics,
  Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination as well as
  in the common entrance test for admission into the MBBS
  course as prescribed in the MCI Regulations.
E
         9. Clause 5.5(ii) of the MCI Regulations, which prescribes
    the procedure for selection and admission to the MBBS course
    on the basis of competitive entrance examination, reads as
    under:
F       "(5) Procedure for selection to MBBS course be as
        follows:-

           (ii)   In case of admission on the basis of competitive
                  entrance examination under clause (2) to (4) of this
G                 regulation, a candidate must have passed in the
                  subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English
                  individually and must have obtained a minimum of
                  50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry
                  and Biology at the qualifying examination as
H                 mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4 in addition
 CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1081
    OF GUJARAT & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

            must have come in the merit list prepared as a . A
            result of such competitive entrance examination by
            securing ·not less than 50% marks in Physics,
            Chemistry and Biology taken together in the
            competitive examination. In respect of candidates
            belonging to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, or B
            Other Backward Classes the marks obtained in
            Physics, Chemist..Yand~Biology taken together in
            qualifying examination and competitive entrance
            examination be 40% instead of 50% as stated
            above:                                                       c
     Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the
     qualifying examination the result of which has not been
     declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the
     competitive entrance examination and in case of selection
     for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be                   D
     admitted to the course until he fulfills the eligibility criteria
     under regulation 4."

It will be clear from a careful reading of this clause of the MCI
Regulations that candidates belonging to the Scheduled                   E
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes must
have secured 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology
taken together in both the qualifying examination and must also
secure 40% marks in the competitive entrance examination on
the basis of which admission to the MBBS course is being                 F
made in a State.

     10. The relevant provisions of Rule 5 and Rule 12 of the
State Rules, 2008 are quoted herein below:

    "5. Eligibility for Admission: (1) For the purpose of                G
    admission, a candidate shall have passed with "B-group"
    or "AB-group" the qualifying examination from, -

      (i)   the Gujarat Board; or
                                                                         H
    1082          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A          (ii)     the Central Board of Secondary Education Board
                    provided that the school in which the candidate has
                    studied, should have been located in the State of
                    Gujarat; or

       (iii) the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations,
B
       New Delhi Board provided that the school in which the
       candidate has studied should have been located in the
       State of Gujarat; and

       (iv) appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test
c      conducted in the current academic year.

       12. Minimum qualifying standard for admission: (1)
       No student shall be admitted in the professional medical
       education course unless he/she fulfills the eligibility criteria,
D      including the minimum qualifying marks (standard).

       (2) The minimum qualifying standard for admission shall
       be notified by the State Government by order in the Official
       Gazette from time to time."

E      The notification issued by the State Government under rule
       12 (2) notifying the minimum qualifying standards for
       admission is extracted herein below:

                                     "ORDER
F               Health and Family Welfare Department,
                      Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar,
                       Dated the 2nd June, 2008
      Gujarat Professional       No. MCG-1008-931-J: In
      Medical Educational        pursuance to the power
G     Colleges or                conferred by the sub
      Institutions (Regulation rule (2) of rule 12 of the
      of Admission and           Institutions the Government
      Payment of Fees)           of Gujarat here by notifies
      Rules, 2008                following minimum qualifying
H                                standard for admission to the
CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1083
   OF GUJARAT & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

                            first year of professional            A
                            medical educational courses
                            namely:-
  Minimum aggregate marks of external evaluation in
  theory subjects in qualifying examination (Physics,
  Chemistry and Biology)                                          B
    1.   Medical and Dental Courses:
         (a) for General Category Candidates           70%
         (b) for Schedule Castes, Scheduled            40%
             Tribes, Socially & Educational
             Backward Classes (Excluding                          c
             Creamy layer) Candidates

    2.   For Ayurved/ Nursing/ Homeopathy/ Physiotherapy/
         Optometry/ Naturopathy/ Orthotics/ Occupational
         Therapy Courses.                                         D

         (a) for General Category Candidates           50%

         (b) for Schedule Castes, Scheduled            40%
             Tribes, Socially & Educational                       E
             Backward Classes (Excluding
             Creamy layer) Candidates
    By the order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.
                                                         Sd/-     F
                                                  (A.K. Bhatt)
                          Joint Secretary to the Government."
On a careful reading of the provisions of Rules 5 and 12 of the
State Rules, 2008 and the notification dated 02.06.2008 of the
State Government under Rule 12 (2) of the State Rules, 2008,      G
it will be clear that under the State Rules, 2008 candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (excluding
Creamy Layer) eligible for admission to the MBBS course was
required to have 40% marks in the qualifying examination in       H
    1084    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   Physics, Chemistry and Biology and must have appeared in the
    competitive entrance examination conducted in the current
    academic year.

         11 . On a comparison of the minimum criteria for admission
B   to the MBBS course laid down in the MCI Regulations and the
    State Rules 2008, we find that both the MCI Regulations and
    State Rules, 2008 insist that a candidate must have obtained
    40% marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the
    qualifying examination. The only difference between the MCI
    Regulations and the State Rules, 2008 is that while the MCI
C   Regulations require the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
    Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes to
    secure in the competitive entrance examination for admission
    40% marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken
    together, the State Rules, 2008 do not contain such a
D    requirement. But .as the State Rules had prescribed a
    qualification standard which was less than that of MCI, the
    seven appellants, who took the Gujarat common entrance test
    for the academic year -2008-2009, got selected on the basis
    of their merit for the seats in the MBBS course reserved for the
E   Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
    Classes and got admitted in the college even though they had
    not secured 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in
    the Gujarat common entrance test. The qualification
     requirements prescribed by the State cannot be lower than
F   those prescribed by the MCI. Therefore, in law, the order of the
     High Court is right.

       12. This is, however, a clear case where the admissions
  of the seven appellants took place due to the fault of the rule-
G making authority in not making the State Rules, 2008 in
  conformity of the MCI Regulations. For this fault of the rule-
  making authority if the appellants are discharged from the
  MBBS course, they will suffer grave injustice. On the peculiar
  facts of the case, we are thus of the view that this is a fit case
  where this Court should exercise its power under Article 142
H
 CHOWDHURY NAVIN HEMABHAI & ORS. v. STATE 1085
    OF GUJARAT & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

of the Constitution to do complete justice between parties. In        A
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v.
State of Gujarat and Others. ((1991) 4 SCC 406] after
examining the width of this power under Article 142 of the
Constitution, this Court held:
                                                                      8
    "No enactment made by Central or State legislature can
    limit or restrict the power of this Court under Article 142
    of the Constitution, though while exercising power under
    Article 142 of the Constitution, the court must take into
    consideration the statutory provisions regulating the matter      C
    in dispute. What would be the need of "complete justice"
    in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and
    circumstances of each case and while exercising that
    power the Court would take into consideration the express
    provisions of a substantive statute. Once this Court has
    taken seisin of a case, cause or matter, it has power to          D
    pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to
    do complete justice in the matter. This has been the
    consistent view of this Court as would appear from the
    decisions of this Court in State of U.P. v. Poosu ((1976)
    3 SCC 1], Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain ((1986) 1 SCC 75],           E
    Navnit R. Kamani v. R.R. Kamani ((1988) 4 SCC 387],
    B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore ((1966) 3 SCR 682],
     Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 ((1965) 1 SCR 413,
    499] and Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. ((1982) 2 SCC
     101]."                                                           F
      13. In Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra
((2006) 7 SCC 501), this Court has also held that while
exercising its discretion and jurisdiction and to do complete
justice in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court must   G
consider all relevant aspects of the matter including the
decisions of this Court. In that case, the Court found that the
Sandeep Subhash Parate did not lack bona fides in getting
admission in the course of Bachelor of Engineering, Pune
University, in a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, and              H
    1086    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A exercising its constitutional power under Article 142 of the
  Constitution the Court held that his studies in the professional
  course should not be disturbed as he might not be entirely
  responsible for the admission in a reserved seat.

        14. In the facts of the present case, we have found that the
8
  appellants were not to be blamed for having secured admission
  in the MBBS course and the fault was entirely of the rule-making
  aothority in making the 2008 Rules and the appellants have
     •
  gone through the pains of appearing in the common entrance
  test and have been selected on the basis of their merit and
C admitted into the MBBS course in the college in accordance
  with the State Rules, 2008 and have pursued their studies for
  a year. Hence, even though under the MCI Regulations the
  appellants were not eligible for admission to the MBBS course
  in' the academic year 2008-2009, for the purpose of doing
D complete justice in the matter before us, we direct that the
  admissions of the appellants to the MBBS course in the college
  during the academic year 2008-2009 will not be disturbed. This
  direction shall not, however, be treated as a precedent. The
  appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
E
  N.J.                                         Appeal disposed of.