Supreme Court of India

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusMANAS RANJAN BEHERA & ORS.

Citation: 2009 INSC 1199
Decided: 26 October 2009
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K G BALAKRISHNANP SATHASIVAM

Holding

The High Court erred in directing post‑cut‑off admissions, but the delay for the twelve eligible students is condoned as a one‑time measure, and the prescribed time‑schedule must be strictly followed.

Summary

The Medical Council of India (MCI) appealed against a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court that had ordered admission of twelve students to medical courses after the statutory cut‑off date of 30 September. The Supreme Court had previously directed that the time‑schedule in the MCI Regulations must be strictly adhered to, and any default would attract personal liability. The Court held that the High Court should not have issued the impugned order, but observed that the twelve students were eligible and, due to an unprecedented situation, could not secure admission within the prescribed period. Consequently, the delay was condoned as a one‑time measure, while reiterating that the schedule must be followed strictly in future. The appeal was disposed of, affirming the MCI’s position and clarifying the mandatory nature of the time‑schedule.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could validly direct admission of students after the cut‑off date contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions on strict adherence to the time‑schedule.
Whether a delay in admission can be condoned as a one‑time measure despite the mandatory schedule.
Whether the time‑schedule prescribed in the MCI Regulations is enforceable as a mandatory requirement.

Subjects

medical educationadmissioncut‑off datetime‑scheduleMCI RegulationsSupreme Court directioncondonationone‑time measure

Judgment

                       (2009] 15 S.C.R. 450


A                 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
                                 v.
                MANAS RANJAN BEHERA & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 7134-35 of 2009)

                       OCTOBER 26, 2009
B
     [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

        Education/Educational Institutions:

c       Admission to medical courses - Time Schedule
  prescribed - High Court directing admission to students after
  cut-off date - HELD: In view of directions of Supreme Court
  that time schedule provided in Regulations to be strictly
  adhered j.<YtSy all concerned, High Court should not have
0 passed the impugned order - However, it has been noticed
  that the students concerned were eligible, and because of
  unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission
  within the prescribed time limit - Delay in giving admission      ...
  to them is condoned as a one time measure - However, it is
E clarified that the time schedule prescribed by the Court should
  be followed strictly.

        Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.
    2005 (2) sec 65, relied on.

F                       Case Law Reference:
        2005 (2) sec 65          relied on            para 2

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7134-35 of 2009.
                                                                          ',,
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .10 .2008 of the High
    Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008.

        Abhinav Mukerji, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia and

H                               450
                MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MANAS RANJAN                  451
                            BEHERA & ORS.

"' ,,,        Surbhi Mehta for the Appellant.                                    A
                  Amarendra Bal, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr: Vinod Tiwari,
              J.P.N. Gupta (for K.L. Janjani), Jana Kalyan Das for the
              Respondents.

                     The following Order of the Court was delivered              B

                                            ORDER

                     1. Leave granted.

                   2. The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order      C
              passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa
              directing the admission of 12 students after the cut-off date of
              30th September of the concerned year. It may be noticed in
              Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and others,
              reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65, this Court directed that all the      D
              parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as
              regards admission to students in the Medical and Dental
              colleges. In Direction-15 of paragraph 35 of the Judgment, we
              has also indicated, "Time schedule provided in the Regulations
              shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the    E
              defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded
              with."

                   In view of these directions, the High Court should not have
              passed the impugned Order. However, we have noticed that
              these 12 students were eligible and because of unprecedented       F
              situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed
              time limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them
              as a one time measure. However, we clarify that these time
              schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly.
                                                                                 G
•        .;          The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

              R.P.                                    Appeals disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "medical education"Sign in to search