DEEPA T.HOMAS & ORS.versusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

                      [2012] 3 S.C.R. 11


                  DEEPA T.HOMAS & ORS.                           A
                               v.
           MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2012)

                     JANUARY 25, 2012
                                                                 B
   [CYRIAC JOSEPH AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

        Education - Medic<Jf Education - MBBS course -
  Admission - Irregular admission - Relief under Art. 142 of
  Constitution - Whether respondents including the MCI, the C
  University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi University,
  Kottayam should be directed to permit the appellants-students
  to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were
  admitted in the different Private Unaided Medical Colleges
  in Kera/a in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not D
  eligible for such admissions as per the Regulations of the
  MCI, but had satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in
  the "Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007" issued by the
  respondent-Medical Colleges - Held: The instant case is an
  eminently fit case for invoking Supreme Court's powers under E
  Article 142 of the Constitution - On the strength of the interim
. orders passed by the High Court and subsequently by
  Supreme Court, the appellants continued their studies for 4~
 years and appeared in the University examinations -
 Although the admissions of appellants were jrregular as they F
  did not satisfy the requirement of securing not less than 50%
 marks in the GEE as prescribed in the MCI Regulations, in
 the special facts and circumstances, the appellants should be
 allowed to continue and complete their MBBS course and also
 permitted to appear in the University examinations as if they G
 had been regularly admitted to the course - Such an order
 is necessary for doing complete justice in the matter -
 However, since irregular admissions were made by
 respondent-Colleges in violation of the MCI Regulations,
                              11                                 H
   12      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A though due to the mistake or omission in the Prospectus
  issued by the respondent colleges, they should be directed
  to surrender from the management quota, number of seats
  equal to the number of such irregular admissions - In facts
  and circumstances of the case, suggestion on behalf of MCI
B to impose penalty on the Colleges not accepted -
  Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.

       The appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake
  or omission crept in the "Prospectus for MBBS
  Admission, 2007" issued by the respondent-Medical
C Colleges as regards the eligibility criteria for admission.
  When the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations
  insist on a minimum of 50% marks both in the qualifying
  examination and in the Competitive Entrance
  Exami~ation ('CEE') separately, the Prospectus did not
D specify that separate 50% marks were required in the
  CEE also. Though the appellants secured more than 50%
  marks in the qualifying examination, they secured less
  than 50% marks in the CEE. Without noticing and without
  being aware of the difference between the MCI
E Regulations and the Prospectus in respect of the
  eligibility criteria, the appellants took admission in the
  medical colleges. Immediately after the admission the
  colleges sent the list of admitted students and their marks
  to the MCI. There was no objection from the MCI and the
F appellants continued their studies. However, several
  months thereafter, MCI directed the colleges concerned_
  to discharge the appellants on the ground that they were
  not eligible for admission as they had secured less than
  50% marks in the CEE. Though the appellants and the
G colleges represented to the MCI and requested to
  reconsider its decision, the MCI refused to change its
  stand. The appellants thereafter approached the High
  Court for redressal of their grievance and on the basis
  of interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ
H petitions !iled by them, continued their studies and
DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF               13
              INDIA & ORS.
appeared. i.n the examinations conducted by the               A
University. However, the writ petition!> filed by the
appellants were ultimately dismissed by the High Court.
The High Court held that the regulations framed by the
MCI were mandatory in nature; that the admission of the
appellants was irregular and the MCI was justified in         B
directing the colleges to discharge the appellants.

     Faced with the threat of discharge from the colleges,
the appellants came up before this Court pleading that
the indulgence shown to the students by this Court in the     C
Monika Ranka's case may be extended to the appellants.

    The question that arose for consideration was
vyhether this Court should direct the respondents
ihcluding the MCI, the University of Calicut and the
Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam to permit the             D
appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course
to which they were admitted in the different Private
Unaided Medical Colleges in Kerala in the academic year
2007-08, though they were not eligible for such
admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had         E
satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in the
"Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007" issued by the
respondent-Medical Colleges.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                              F
     HELD: 1.1. On the strength of the interim orders
passed by the High Court and subsequently by this
Court, the appellants continued their ,Studies for 4% years
and appeared in the University examinations. In the light
of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is    G
quite unjust and unfair to discharge the appellants at this
stage. This is an eminently fit case for invoking this
Court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India to permit the appellants to continue and complete
the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the year       H
   14      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A 2007. Such an order is necessary for doing complete
  justice in the matter. [Paras 20, 21] [26-G-H; 27-A-B]

       1.2. In Monika Ranka's case, though the admission
  was held to be irregular, this Court showed indulgence
  to the students and permitted them to continue and
8
  complete the course on the ground that there was
  nothing on record to show that the students were
  informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance
  examination and the students had already completed one
  year of their MBBS course. In fact, the case of the
C appellants is much better than the case of the students
  in Monika Ranka's case. In Monika Ranka's case, there
  was no confusion regarding the eligibility criteria
  whereas in this case the Prospectus omitted to mention
  the requirement of securing minimum 50% marks for the
D CEE as provided in the MCI Regulations. The appellants
  in Monika Ranka's case had completed only one year of
  their course, whereas in this case the appellants are
  completing the 4th year of the MBBS course. As in Monika
  Ranka's case, the appellants also were not informed of
E the marks secured by them in the entrance examination.
  Though the appellants had specifically pleaded so in the
  writ petitions and also in these appeals, there is nothing
  on record to show that the marks secured by them in the
  entrance examination were communicated to them. The
F High Court has noted in the impugned judgment that
  since there was nothing on record to show that the
  appellants in Monika Ranka's case were informed of the
  marks secured by them in the entrance examination, the
  Apex Court indulged to give them the personal relief of
G permitting them to continue with the course. Even though
  the case of the appellants herein also is similar, the High
  Court has not given any reason for not extending the
  same relief to the appellants. There is also no finding
  anywhere in the judgment that the marks of the CEE were
H communicated to the appellants. [Para 21] [27-C-H; 28-A)
DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF
                                                     '·   15
              INDIA & ORS.
    Monika Ranka & Ors. v. Medical Council of India & Ors.     A
[Order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5518-5519 of 2008]; Chowdhury
Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others
(2011) 3 SCC 617: 2011 (2) SCR 1071 - relied on.
                                                               8
     2. Having regard to the special facts and
circumstances of this case and the extra-ordinary
situation arising in the case, this Court does not in any
way feel inhibited to invoke its jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice.
[Para 23] (29-G-H]                                             C

     2.2. Although the admissions of the appellants were
irregular as they did not satisfy the requirement of
securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE as
prescribed in the MCI Regulations, this Court is inclined      D
to take a considerate view in the special facts and
circumstances and hence it is directed that, as a special
case, the appellants shall be allowed to continue and
complete their MBBS course and also permit them to
appear in the University examinations as if they had been      E
regularly admitted to the course. (Para 24] (30-A-C]

    2.3. Since irregular admissions were made by the
respondent -Colleges in violation of the MCI Regulations,
though due to the mistake or omission in the Prospectus
issued by the respondent colleges, they should be F
directed to surrender from the management quota,
number of seats equal to the number of such irregular
admissions. Such surrenders shall be made in a phased
manner starting with the admissions of the year 2012.
However, any of the respondent-Colleges shall not be G
required to surrender more than eight (8) seats in one
academic year. (Para 25] (30-D-E]
    Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and
Another (1998) 4 sec 409 : 1998 (2) SCR 795 - relied on.       H
    16     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 3 S.C.R..


A      . 3; Though on behalf pf the MCI it was pleaded that
   as a deterrent against irregular admissions in future a
  -penalty or fine should be imposed on the respondent-
   Colieges arid for the said purpose it was suggested that
   the respondent-Colleges may be directed to deposit with
B the Legal Services Authority the entire amount of fees
   collected by the colleges from the appellant-students,
   having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
   there is no sufficient justification for such a harsh
   treatment as the irregularity in the admissions occurred
C due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission
   on the part of the Colleges while issuing the Prospectus.
   Since the mistake or omission occurred even _before the
   applications were invited, it is not possible to attribute
   any malafides on the part of the respondent-Colleges as
   it does not appear to be a deliberate act to violate the MCI
0
   Regulations and since the irregular admissions have not
    resulted in any pecuniary gain for the management. Even
   if the appellants were not admitted, the Colleges could
    have admitted equal number of other candidates from the
    management quota and collected from them the very
E same fees applicable to management quota students.
    There was also no attempt to favour the appellants, as
   the Colleges could not have anticipated that the
    appellants would apply and fail to secure 50% marks in
   the CEE. Moreover the respondent-Colleges inspite of
F bonafide lapse are adequately punished as they have
    been directed to surrender equal number of seats from
    the management quota in the coming years. As a result
    of such surrender of management quota seats, there will
    be considerable reduction in the income of the Colleges
G from the fees of the students, because, the fees to be paid
    by a student admitted in the management quota are
    admittedly much higher than the fees to be paid by the
   student admitted in the Government quota. Hence in the
    facts and circumstances of this case, the suggestion on
H
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                   17
               INDIA & ORS.
behalf of MCI to impose a penalty on the Colleges is not            A
accepted. [Para 26] [30-E-H; 31-A-E]

                      Case Law Reference:

     2011 (2) SCR 1071          relied on             Para 22
                                                                    B
     1998 (2) SCR 795           relied on             Para 23

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1015 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.9.2010 of the High           C
Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) No. 34270 of 2009. ·

                             WITH

     C.A. Nos. 1016-1017, 1018 & 1027. of 2012
                                                                    D
      Rajeev Dhawan, K.V. Viswanathan, A. Sharan, Shyam
Diwan, Romy Chacko, Satya Mitra, E.M.S. Anam Fazlin Anam,
Manoj V. George, Alex Joseph, K Gireesh Kumar, Shilpa M.
George, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Raghenth Basant, Arjun
Singh Bhati, Senthil Jagadeesan, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani            E
Tripathi, Ashish Kumar, Somesh Chand.a Jha, Kedar Nath
Tripathy, V. Mohana, P.V. Dinesh for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. 1. Leave granted.                            F

     2. The short question that arises for consideration in these
Civil Appeals is whether this Court should direct the
respondents including the Medical Council of India (for short
'MCI'), the University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi            G
University, Kottayam to permit the appellants to continue and
complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the
different Private Unaided Medical Colleges in Kerala in the
academic year 2007-08, though they were not eligible for such
admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had satisfied     H
    18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A all the eligibility criteria stipulated in the "Prospectus for MBBS .
   Admission, 2007"- issued by the respondent-Medical Colleges.
    The appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake or omission
    crept in the Prospectus.as regards the eligibility criteria for
    admission. When the MCI Regulations insist on a minimum of
B 50% marks both in the qualifying examination and in the
    Competitive Entrance Expmination (for short 'CEE') separately, ·
    the Prospect1,1s did not specify that separate 50% marks were ·
    required in the CEE also. Though the appellants had secured
    more than 50% marks in the qualifying examination, they could
C secure only less t~an 50% marks in the CEE. Without noticing
    and without being ·aware of the d.ifference between the MCI
    Regulations and the Prospectus in respect of the eligibility
    criteria, the-appellants took admission in the medical colle-ges.
    Immediately after the admission the colleges sent the list of
b · admitted students and their marks to the MCI. There was no
    objection from the MCI and the. appellants continued their
    studies. However, several months thereafter, MCI directed the
    colleges concerned to discharge the ap.pellants on the ground
    that they were not eligible for admission as they had secured
E only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Though the appellants
    and the colleges represented to the MCI and requested to
    reco.nsider its decision, the MCI refused to change its stand.
     Hence, the appellants were constrained to approach the High
    Court of Kerala for redressal of their grievance and on the basis
F of interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions
    filed _by them, the appellants continued their studies and
    appeared in the examinations conducted by the University.
    However, the writ petitions filed by the appellants were
     ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 16th September,
G 2010. Faced with the threat of discharge from the colleges, the
    appellants have filed these appeals by special leave. On the
    strength of the interim orders passed by this Court, the
    appellants continued their studies and appeared in the
    examinations and they are now in the fourth year of the MBBS
    course. The appellants claim that they are innocent victims of
H
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                        19
       INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
 an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission crept in the          A
 Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria for admission. They
 contend that even if there was some discrepancy between the
 eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus·and fhe eligibility
 criteria mentioned in the MCI Regulations, they were not in any
 way responsible for such discrepancy and they may not be               B
 penalised for no fault of theirs. The appellants seek intervention
 of this Court to save their career and future.

       3. The appellants are students of Jubilee Medical Mission
  College and Research Institute, Thrissur, M.E.S. Medical
  College, Perinthalmanna, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
                                                                        c ~
  Medical College, Kolenchery and Pushapagiri Institute of
  Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Thiruvalla. Admittedly
 all these medical colleges are members of the Kerala Private
.·Medical College Management As,,sociation (for short,
 'Management Association') and the-Prospectus for admission             D
 to MBBS course, 2007 issued by the Management Association
 was followed by these medical colleges except the M.E.S.
  Medical College. The prospectus issued by the M.E.S. Medical
 College also contained identical provisions relating to eligibility
 criteria for admission.                                                E

     4. As per Clause 1.1 of the Prospectus, it was made clear
that the Management Association had decided to .introduce a
separate selection procedure .for admission to MBBS course,
2007-2008 in the membe/ colleges of the Management                      F
Association as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the
matter.

     As per Clause 2.2(i), the academic qualification required
for admission was "Pass in Higher Secondary Examination of
the Board of Higher Secondary Education of Kerala or                    G
examination recognised equivalent thereto with 60% marks in
Biology separately and 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and
Biology put together or equivalent grade". ·

     Clause 4.1 of the Prospectus provided as follows:                  H
    20       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A        "Preparation of Merit List and Allotment of Candidates:
         Admission will be on the basis of marks obtained in the
         entrance examination and marks obtained for Physics,
         Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination. The
         marks will be apportioned in the ratio of 50:50. After the
B        entrance test, the marks obtained for the Physics,
         Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination will be
         added to the marks obtained at the entrance test and a
         combined merit list will be published. Separate merit list
         also will be published for categories for which seats are
c        reserved. Allotment to colleges and admission will be on
         the basis of centralized counselling."

  As per the above provisions in the Prospectus, even though a
  candidate was required to pass the Higher Secondary
  Examination of the Board of Higher Secondary Education of
D Kerala or examination recognised equivalent thereto with 60%
  marks in Biology separately and 60% marks in Physics,
  Chemistry and Biology put together, there was no requirement
  of any minimum marks in the entrance examination.

E        5. It cannot be disputed that admissions to MBBS Course
    in the respondent-Medical Colleges are governed by the MCI
    Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short
    'MCI Regulations').

F      6. According to Regulation 4(2) of the MCI Regulations,
  no candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS
  course until he/she has passed one of the qualifying
  examinations mentioned therein. According to Regulation 5(2)
  of the MCI Regulations, in States having more than one
  University/Board/Examination Body conducting the qualifying
G examination or where there is more than one medical college
  under the administrative control of one authority, a competitive
  entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform
  evaluation as there may be variation of standards of qualifying
  examinations conducted by the different agencies.
H
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                        21
       INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
    Clause 5(ii) of Regulation 5 reads as follows:                      A
    "5. Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall be as
    follows:

    (i) xxx                        xxxx                 xxx
                                                                  B
     (ii) In case of admission on the basis        of
                                                    competitive
     entrance examination under clause (2) to (4) of this
     regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subject~
     of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and·
     must have obtained a minimum of 50% of marks taken . c
   . together in Physics Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying
   · examination as mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4 and
     in addition must have come in the merit list prepared as a
     result of such competitive entrance examination by
     securing not less then 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry
                                                                  0
     and Biology taken together competitive examination. In
     respect of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste,
     Schedule Tribes or other Backward Classes the marks
     obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together
     in qualifying examination and competitive entrance E
     examination be 40% instead of 50% as stated above:

           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           F
    for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be
    admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria
    under regulation 4."

     Thus, as per the MCI Regulations, in the case of admission         G
on the basis of competitive entrance examination, a candidate
must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together
in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination
and in addition, must have secured not less than '50% marks
in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the                 H
    22        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A competitive examination: However such a requirement of
  minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken
  together in the competitive examination was not mentioned in
  the Prospectus issued by the colleges.

B       7. Admittedly the appellants were eligible for admission as
  per the criteria laid down in the Prospectus, but they were not
  eligible for admission as per the criteria laid down in the MCI
  Regulations, as they secured only less than 50% marks in
  Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the
C competitive examination.

         8. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that
    the regulations framed by the MCI are mandatory in nature. For
    this purpose, the High Court relied on the judgment dated 14th
    July, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition
D   No. 13379 of 2007 and connected cases. In the said judgment,
    the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the Regulations
    framed by the MCI are mandatory in nature. In the order dated
    4th September, 2008 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5518-5519
    of 2008 (Monika Ranka {!. Ors. v Medical Council of India &
E   Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos.5520-5521 of 2008, this Court
    upheld the principle laid down by the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh, though the appellants therein were granted personal
    relief treating it as a special case. Learned counsel for the
    appellants. in these appeals did not seriously contest the
F   proposition that the MCI regulations are mandatory in nature.
    They only pleaded that the indulgence shown to the students
    by this Court in the above-mentioned Monika Ranka's case
    may be extended to the appellants, as their case is better than
    the case of the students in Monika Ranka's case. Learned
G   counsel for the appellants also did not dispute that the
    appellants had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE.
    Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the admission
    of the appellants was irregular and the MCI was justified in
    directing the ·colleges to discharge the appellants.

H        9. Therefore, the only question to be considered in these
  DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                      23
        INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
 appeals is whether, having regard to the facts and                    A
 circumstances of these cases, the appellants should be allowed
 to continue and complete the MBBS course as was done by
 this Court in Monika Ranka's case. We may now refer to some
 of the aspects which are relevant for answering the above
 question.                                                             B

       10. The appellants had applied for admission in response
. to the Prospectus for admission to MBBS 2007 issued by the
  colleges. It was not disputed that the Prospectus was approved
  by the Admission Supervisory Committee constituted by the
  Government of Kerala under the Kerala Professional Colleges          C
  or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of
  Admission, Fixation of Non exploitative Fee and Other
  Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional
  Education) Act 19 of 2006. The CEE was conducted and the
  merit list was prepared under the supervision of the said            D
  Committee.

        11. However, there was a minor discrepancy between the
  eligibility criteria for admission prescribed by the MCI
   Regulations and the eligibility criteria mentioned in the           E
  Prospectus. The requirement of securing not less than 50%
  marks in the CEE was not mentioned in the Prospectus.
  According to the appellants and the colleges, it was only an
  inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission while preparing
. the Prospectus. It was contended that Regulation 5(5)(ii) is         F
  clumsily worded, with the words "taken together" appearing in
  several places giving an impression that minimum 50% is
  required when the marks of qualifying examination and the
  marks of the CEE are taken together. It was also contended
  that such an omission or mistake occurred due to lack of             G
  sufficient clarity in Regulation 5(5)(ii). There is some substance
  in the contention.

      12. It was pointed out that, when the MCI Regulations
 require only minimum 50% marks in the qualifying examination,
 the Prospectus issued by the Management Asscr.iation                  H
    24       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A stipulated a higher standard of minimum 60% marks in the
  qualifying examination and the appellants did satisfy the said
  requirement by securing 60% to 99% in the qualifying
  examination. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellants were
  not meritorious candidates, though unfortunately they could
B secure only less than 50% marks in the CEE. The Prospectus
  however did not mention the requirement of minimum 50%
  marks in the CEE separately. The Prospectus was submitted
  to the Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Act
  19 of 2006 but the Committee did not raise any objection to
c the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus. Possibly, the
  Admission Supervisory Committee also failed to notice the
  omission.

       13. It was specifically averred by the appellants that the
  marks obtained in the CEE were not communicated to the
D candidates and consequently the appellants were not aware
  that they had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE.
  Hence it cannot be said that the appellants took admission
  knowing that they were not eligible for admission. The CEE
  was conducted under the supervision of the Admission
E Supervisory Committee which scrutinized and approved the
  merit list. It was also averred that though the list of selected .
  candidates was submitted by the colleges to the Admission
  Supervisory Committee, no objection was raised by the
  Committee to the admission of the appellants for a very long
F time. In this context, it may be remembered that Section 4(6)
  of Act 19 of 2006 provides as hereunder:

          "The Admission Supervisory Committee shall supervise
         and guide the entire process of admission of students to
G        the unaided professional colleges or institutions with a view
         to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit based
         and non exploitative under the provisions of the Act".

      In such circumstances, the appellants had no reason to
  suspect that they were ineligible for admission. The list of
H admitted candidates, along with the marks obtained by them
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                    25
       INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]

in the qualifying examination and the CEE, was submitted by         A
the colleges to the MCI immediately after the admissions. It was
from the list of admitted candidates and their marks that the
MCI found that the appellants had secured only less than 50%
marks in the CEE. Possibly, in view of the delay in conducting
the scrutiny, the above irregularity was brought to the notice of   B
the colleges by the MCI long after they were admitted to the
course. Having realised the mistake or omission in the
Prospectus for the year 2007, the colleges rectified the mistake/
omission in the prospectus for the subsequent years.

     14. The appellants have secured 60% to 99% marks in
                                                                    c
the qualifying examination as against the 50% required under
the MCI Regulations. They have also secured more than 50%
of the aggregate marks, if the marks of the qualifying
examination and the CEE are taken together.
                                                                    D
     15. The High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment
that the appellants in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 13810, 13817,
13818, 13819 and 21534 of 2010 contended that though they
had not obtained 50% in the CEE, they had obtained more than
50% marks in other Competitive Entrance Examinations like           E
the Entrance Test conducted by Christian Medical College,
Ludhiana, the Karnataka Common Entrance Examination for
Private Colleges and the Common Entrance Examination
conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations,
Government of Kerala. Some of the appellants claimed that in        F
view of their admissiqn in the respondent-Colleges, they gave
up admissions offered to them in medical colleges outside
Kera la.

     16. Long before the MCI directed the colleges to discharge
the appellants, admissions for the academic year 2007-2008          G
had been closed everywhere.

    17. The respondent- Colleges or the MCI had not received
any complaint against the admission of the appellants from any
other candidate who sought admission to MBBS.                       H
    26        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A       18. Realising that the admissions given to the appellants
    were irregular and that such irregularity occurred due to the
    inadvertent omission to include in the Prospectus the
    requirement of minimum 50% marks in the CEE, the
    respondent-Colleges except the M.E.S. College, through their
B   counsel offered before the High Court to surrender equal
    number of seats from the management quota to. the Government
    quota in the next year. Though the offer has been noted by the
    High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, it was
    not accepted by the High Court. Learned counsel for all the
c   respondent - Colleges including the M.E.S. College stated
    before this Court that the said Colleges are willing to surrender
    from the management quota number of seats equal to the
    number of students sought to be discharged. However, learned
    counsel for the M.E.S. College further submitted that
0   considering that the number of seats to be so surrendered by
    them is 27, the said college may be permitted to surrender them
    over a reasonable period.

          19. The learned counsel for respondent-Colleges also
    submitted that the MCI has not been implementing the
E   Regulations uniformly. For example, admissions to MBBS
    course in the State of Tamilnadu are allowed to be made
    without any entrance test and only based on the marks in the
    qualifying examination. This was not disputed by the learned
    counsel for the MCI. It was also alleged that in State of Kerala
F   itself the MCI had regularized the irregular admissions in other
    Private Medical Colleges like the Gokulam Medical College,
    but the correctness of the allegation could not be verified by
    the learned counsel for MCI for want of time.

G        20. On the strength of the interim orders passed by the
    High Court and subsequently by this Court, the appellants have
    continued their studies for 4% years and have appeared in the
    University examinations.

         21. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances
H   stated above, we are of the view that it is quite unjust and unfair
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                      27
       INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]

 to discharge the appellants at this stage. This is an eminently A
 fit case for invoking this Court's powers under Article 142 of
·~the Constitution of India to permit the appellants to continue and .
 complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the
 year 2007. Such an order is necessary for doing complete
 justice in the matter. In taking such a view, we are supported B
 by the precedent in the order dated 4th September, 2008
 passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
 5518-5519 of 2008 (Monika Ranka & Ors. v. Medical Council
 of India & Ors.). In that case though the admission was held to
 be irregular, this Court showed indulgence to the students and       c
 permitted them to continue and complete the course on the
 ground that there was nothing on record to show that the
 students were informed of the marks secured by them in the
 entrance examination and the students had already completed
 one year of their MBBS course. In fact, the facts and
                                                                       0
 circumstances pointed out in the earlier paragraphs show that
 the case of fue appellants is much better than the case of the
 students in Monika Ranka's case. In Monika Ranka's case,
 there was no confusion regarding the eligibility criteria whereas
 in this case the Prospectus omitted to mention the requirement
 of securing minimum 50% marks for the CEE as provided in E
 the MCI Regulations. The appellants in Monika Ranka's case
 had completed only one year of their course, whereas in this
 case the appellants are completing the 4th year of the MBBS
 course. As in Monika Ranka's case, the appellants herein also
 were not informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance F
 examination. Though the appellants had specifically pleaded so
 in.the writ petitions and also.in these appeals, there is nothing
 on record to show that the marks secured by them in the
 entrance examination were communicated to them. The High
 Court has noted in the impugned judgment that since there was G
 nothing on record to show that the appellants in Monika Ranka's
 case were informed of the marks secured by them in the
 entrance examination, the Apex Court indulged to give them the
 personal relief of permitting them to continue with the course.
 Even though the case of the appellants herein also is similar, H
    2.8      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               , [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A   the High Court has not given any reason for not extending the
    same relief to the appellants. There is also no finding anywhere
    in the judgment that the marks of the CEE were communicated
    to the appellants.

B       22. We also notice that an almost identical situation arose
   in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat
   and Others ((2011) 3 sec 617]. In that case, the conflict was
   between the provisions in the MCI Regulations and the
   provisions in the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational
C Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Payment
   of Fees) Rules, 2008 (for short, "State Rules"). Under the MCI
   Regulations, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
   Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes were required
   to secure in the common entrance test a minimum of 40%
 · marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, but
D in the State Rules there was no such requirement. Thus, the
   State Rules had prescribed a qualification standard which was
   less than that of the MCI. The appellants before this Court
   belonged to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
   Backward Classes and though they did not secure 40% marks
E in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, they were
   given admission to the MBBS course. The High Court of
   Gujarat had struck down the provision in the State Rules which
   provided that a candidate who appeared in the common
   entrance test was eligible for admission to the MBBS course
F even if he obtained less than 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry
   and Biology taken together in the common entrance test and
   also upheld the directions given by the MCI to discharge the
   appellants from the college. This Court upheld the decision of
   the High Court observing that the qualification requirements
G prescribed by the State cannot be lower than those prescribed
   by the MCI. However, this Court also found that the admissions
   of the appellant-students took place due to the fault of the rule-
   making authority in not making the State Rules in conformity
   with the MCI Regulations and that if the appellants are
H discharged from the MBBS course for the fault of the rule-
 DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 29
       INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]

making authority, they will suffer grave injustice. This Court A
further found that the appellants were not to be blamed for having
secured admission in the MBBS course and that the fault was
entirely on the rule-making authority in making the State Rules.
Even though the appellants were not eligible for admission under
the MCI Regulations, considering that the appellants had gone 8
through the pains of appearing in the common entrance test and
had been selected on the basis of their merit and admitted into
the MBBS course in accordance with the State Rules and had
pursued their studies for a year, this Court, for the purpose of
doing complete justice in the matter, directed that the             c
admissions of the appellants should not be disturbed. Though
this Court observed that the said direction was not to be treated
as a precedent, we find sufficient justification for giving a similar
direction in the case of the appellants before us.

     23. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India D
and Another [(1998) 4 SCC 409] (in para 48), a Constitution
Bench of this Court held:

    "The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
    Article 142 has the power to make such order as is E
    necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties
    in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature
    of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself
    within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it
    cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, F
    except perhaps to balance the equities between the
    conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the
    creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court
    is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-
    settling. "                                                      G

Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this
case and the extra-ordinary situation arising in the case, we do
not in any way feel inhibited to invoke our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice
in the matter before us.                                            H
    30        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A        24. For the reasons stated above, we although agree with
    the view of the MCI and the High Court that the admissions of
    the appellants were irregular as they did not satisfy the
    requirement of securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE
    as prescribed in the MCI Regulations, we are inclined to take
B   a considerate view in the special facts and circumstances
    mentioned in the earlier paragraphs and hence we direct that,
    as a special case, the appellants shall be allowed to continue
    and complete their MBBS course and also permit them to
    appear in the University examinations as if they had been
c   regularly admitted to the course.

         25. Since irregular admissions were made by the
    respondent -Colleges in violation of the MCI Regulations, though
    due to the mistake or omission in the Prospectus issued by the
    respondent colleges, they should be directed to surrender from
D the management quota, number of seats equal to the number
    of such irregular admissions. Such surrenders shall be made
    in a phased manner starting with the admissions of the year
    2012. However, any of the respondent-Colleges shall not be
   _required to surrender more than eight (8) seats in one
E ! academic year.

        26. Learned counsel for the MCI strongly pleaded that as
  a deterrent against irregular admissions in future a penalty or
  fine should be imposed on the respondent-Colleges and for the
F said purpose he suggested that the respondent-Colleges may
  be directed to deposit with the Legal Services Authority the
  entire amount of fees collected by the colleges from the
  appellant-students. Having rega~d to the facts and
  circumstances of the case, we do not find sufficient justification
G for such a harsh treatment, as in our view, the irregularity in the
  admissions occurred due to an inadvertent and bona fide
  mistake or omission on the part of the Colleges while issuing
  the Prospectus. Since the mistake or omission occurred even
  before the applications were invited, it is not possible to
H attribute any malafides on the part of the respondent-Colleges
DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF                   31
      INDIA & ORS. [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
as it does not appear to be a deliberate act to violate the MCI A
Regulations and since the irregular admissions have not
resulted in any pecuniary gain for the management. Even if the
appellants were not admitted, the Colleges could have admitted
equal number of other candidates from the management quota
and collected from them the very same fees applicable to B
management quota students. There was also no attempt to
favour the appellants, as the Colleges could not have
anticipated that the appellants would apply and fail to secure
50% marks in the CEE. Moreover the respondent-Colleges
inspite of bonafide lapse are adequately punished as we have      c
directed them to surrender equal number of seats from the
management quota in the coming years. As a result of such
surrender of management quota seats, there will be
considerable reduction in the income of the Colleges from the
fees of the students, because, the fees to be paid by a student
                                                                0
admitted in the management quota are admittedly much higher
than the fees to be paid by the student admitted in the
Government quota. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this
case, we are not persuaded to accept the suggestion of the ·
learned counsel for the MCI to impose a penalty on the E
Colleges.

      27. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. There
will be no order as to costs.

B.B.B.                                  Appeals disposed of.      F