Supreme Court of India
PRIYA GUPTAversusSTATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 213
- Decided
- 8 May 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A K PATNAIK
Holding
The admissions were arbitrary and contrary to the merit‑based schedule, but the appellants may complete their MBBS on payment of Rs 5 lakhs each, and contempt proceedings are to be initiated against the defaulting officials.
Summary
The appellants, Priya Gupta and Akanksha Adile, were admitted to the MBBS programme at Government Medical College, Jagdalpur on 30 September 2006 through a hurried process that ignored higher‑ranking candidates, allegedly due to favouritism (the father of the second appellant was the Director of Medical Education). The State cancelled their admission in 2010; the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, but the Supreme Court found the admissions to be arbitrary, violative of the merit‑based schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court and MCI regulations. While the Court upheld the cancellation, it permitted the appellants to complete their courses on the condition that each pay Rs 5 lakhs to the college for infrastructure, and it ordered contempt proceedings against the officials responsible for the irregularities. The judgment also issued comprehensive directions to enforce strict adherence to admission schedules and merit criteria in future.
Issues considered
- The admission of the appellants violated the merit‑based schedule and procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court and MCI regulations.
- Whether the cancellation order was violative of natural‑justice principles due to lack of hearing.
- Whether the Supreme Court, under Article 142, could allow the appellants to complete their MBBS despite the cancellation.
- The appropriate remedial measures, including contempt of court actions, for authorities that flouted the admission schedule.
Legislation cited
Subjects
medical admissionmerit principleAll India quotaMCI regulationsarbitrary admissionnepotismcontempt of courtArticle 142equityadmission schedule
Judgment
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 768
A PRIYA GUPTA
v.
STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012)
MAY 08, 2012
B
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
EDUCA TIONIEDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
c Medical and Dental College - Admission to MBBS
course - Tampering with the schedule specified under the
Regulations and judgments of the Supreme Court with clear
intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over
and above candidates of higher merit - Held: Adherence to
0 the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed schedule,
refraining from mid stream admission and adoption of
admission process that is transparent, non-exploitative and
fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme - From
time to time, Supreme Court has given directions in relation
E to the manner of announcement of details, results and
counseling for admission and its publication in newspaper -
Schedules prescribed have the force of law in as much as they
form part of the judgments of Supreme Court - No authority
whether Medical Council of India, Government of India, State
Government, University or selection bodies constituted at the
F college level for allotment of seat by way of counseling are
vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the
time schedule or the procedure of admission - There have
been irregularities in maintaining the prescribed Schedule
and that the fast few days of the declared schedule are
G primarily being utilized in an exploitative manner on account
of charging higher fees for securing admission and thereby
defeating the principle of admission on merit - Adverse
consequences of non-adherence to the time schedule stated
and directions issued - In the instant appeal, two vacant seats
H 768
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 769
were available on 30th September, 2006 - Appellants were A
given admission on 30th September without effecting due
publicity - State Government cancelled their admission on the
ground that it was arbitrary and based on favouritism - High
Court rightly dismissed the writ petition by appellants - There
was nothing on record to show that all the candidates were B
informed of counseling on the last day - Appellants were
stated to have been present in college and were given
admission - Appellant no.2 was daughter of Director of
medical education - From 23rd April 2006 to 29th September
2006, no record to show efforts to fill up vacant seats - Out of c
favouritism and arbitrariness, the appellants were given
admission by completing the entire admission process within
few hours on 30th September, 2006 - The entire exercise
smacked of arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory -
On peculiar facts and circumstances, though there is no legal
0
infirmity in judgment under appeal, but since by virtue of
interim orders, the appellants had completed four years of
studies during the High Cou11 decision, in order to do
complete justice within the ambit of Article 142 of the
Constitution, the appellants permitted to complete their E
professional courses subject to the condition that each one
of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to college, which amount
shall be utilized for developing th19 infrastructure in the college
- Initiation of proceedings directed under the Contempt of
Courts Act against various authorities - Report of the
Committee constituted to look into irregularity in admission F
to the effect that the admission to appellants was on State
PMT merit was a mere eye-was/1 rather than a proper report
upon examining the entire matter in its proper perspective -
Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed
procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the G
judgments of Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 141, 142 - Costs.
Recognition granted to medical or dental college priori
after 15th July of each year - Effect of H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A The appellants had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test
conducted by the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic
year 2006. The results were declared in July 2006.
Appellant No.1 secured general rank 1614 while appellant
No.2 secured general rank 3893 and SC rank 396. The
B first counseling was held on 21-22nd July, 2006 but at
that time, the .Jagdalpur College was not given
permission to commence admission to the MBBS course.
The counseling was conducted for medical colleges at
Raipur and Bilaspur and also for the Raipur Dental
c College. 18 per cent of seats were to be reserved for
allotment under the All India Quota and the Central Pool
quota. The State Government by its letter dated 14th
August, 2006, gr.anted permission for the starting of
admission procedure for the academic year 2006-07 at
the Jagdalpur College. Its annual admission capacity was
0
50 seats which were to be filled up by the candidates who
had qualified PMT 2006 in the order of their merit. The
State Government by letter dated 21st August, 2006 was
stated to have informed the Jagdalpur College that two
seats out of the total seats were reserved for allotment
E under the Central Pool Quota and no seats were reserved
under All India Quota. Upon receipt of recognition, only
48 seats were offered for admission to the students on
22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Central Pool Quota seats
were not filled up and were allegedly not made available
F to the candidates who appeared for that counseling. The
Dean of Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education on 30th September, 2006 that on that date, 48
candidates had taken admission and two seats were lying
vacant. This information was sent in response to inquiry
G by the Director, Medical Education in this regard and
directions were sought by the Jagdalpur College for
filling up of vacant seats. On the same day, the Director,
Medical Education, directed that the seats should be
filled from the merit list and the candidates could be
H contacted on telephone and if contact was not possible,
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 771
admission could be given to the candidates who were A
available in the Jagdalpur College. On 30th September,
2006 itself, the two vacant seats were given to the
appellants. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College informed
the Director, Medical Education about the admission of
the appellants. B
On a complaint regarding irregularity in admission
given to the appellants, a Committee was constituted
which gave report to the effect that no admission was
1granted to any students in All India quota and the C
appellants got admission in Medical College Jagdalpur in
2006 by the State PMT merit on the last date of the
admission i.e. 30th September 2006. The inquiry report
was submitted by the Dean of Jagdalpur College to the
Directorate (DGHS). However, on 22nd July, 2010, the
Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D
Government of Chhattisgarh was informed by the
Assistant Director General (Medical Education),
Government of India that the admission of the appellants
was on the basis of fake letters purported to be issued
from the DGHS and that their admissions may be E
cancelled with immediate effect and action taken report
be submitted to the DGHS. In furtherance to this letter, the
Deputy Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued order
dated 10th September, 2010 stating that the admission of F
these two appellants was not in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules and other guidelines/provisions
with regard to allotment of seats under the All India Quota
and the admission was cancelled with immediate effect.
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. G
The High Court held that admission to the appellants was
given ignoring more meritorious and suitable candidates
which amounted to violation of natural justice to such
other candidates and declined to interfere with the order
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A of cancellation of admission. The instant appeals were
filed challenging the order of the High Court.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Admission to professional colleges is
B governed by the judgment of this Court in the case of
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
[(2002) 8 SCC 481]. The framework of admissions to
colleges was discussed in some detail by this Court.
However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v.
C Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 sec 654], the concept of
an All India quota came to be introduced while
determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such
admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the under-
graduate courses were reserved for this purpose, which
D came to be modified to 15 per cent seats for All India
quota in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal
Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22). In the
case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459), this Court also
E passed directions in relation to the manner of notification/
announcement of details, results and counseling for
admission, in that case, for post graduate admissions,
whi"ch were to be published in two successive issues of
newspapers, including one national paper in English and
F at least two local papers in the language of the State.
Declaration· of results would be made four weeks after the
examination and academic courses were to mandatorily
begin on the 2nd of May every year. Again, in the case of
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4 sec 627), as some of the States
G were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court
took punitive action against the State of Uttar Pradesh
and even contemplated action under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain's case, this
Court has always directed that merit alone must be the
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 773
criteria for admission to MBBS courses. To make such A
admissions more subject-specific, transparent and
systematic, certain further directions were issued by this
Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of
Health Services & Anr. & etc. [(1993) 3 SCC 332]. This Court
clarified that candidates who have been allotted a seat in B
the second round of counseling will have to join the
college within 15 days from the date of their personal
appearance and the whole allotment and admission
process to 15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over
before the 30th September of each year, the remaining c
seats having been surrendered back to the college/State.
Various judgments of this Court have sought to carry
forward, with greater clarity, the fundamental requirement
as stated in TMA Pai that the admission process should
be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Every
0
subsequent judgment of this Court has attempted to
elucidate one or other aspect of this principle. Having
noticed that there have been irregularities in maintaining
the prescribed schedule and that the last few days of the
declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an
exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees E
for securing admission and thereby defeating the
principle of admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65] applied the schedule
notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix F
'E' of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment)
Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. The
Court noticed that the holding of 10+2 examination and
declaration of results is also of importance for the entire
admission process and, therefore, directed strict G
adherence to the Schedule in all respects and by all
concerned. The date of 30th September was stated not
to be the date of normal admission but is to give
opportunity to grant admission against stray vacancies.
The Court clarified that adherence to the time schedule H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A by everyone was a paramount concern. In that case, the
Court issued a specific direction to all the State
functionaries, particularly the Chief Secretaries and
heads of the concerned Ministries/Departments
participating in the States/Union Territories, adopting the
B time schedule and holding the State examination, to
ensure declaration of results on or before 15th June,
2005. They were also required to ensure the appropriate
utilization of All India quota, to fullest extent, by timely
reporting to the DGHS by the Deans of various colleges
C or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of the
acceptance or rejection of seats by the students after the
first counseling of All India/State Quota. Further, this
Court even took pains to declare the need for adherence
to the schedule .for receipt of applications for
establishment of new medical colleges or seats and the
0
process of the review and recommendation by the
Central Government and the Medical Council of India.
Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College &
Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. {(2011) 4 SCC 623], this
Court cautioned all concerned that the schedule specified
E in Mridul Dhar should be maintained and regulations
should be strictly followed. The Court suggested that the
process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or
renewal of permission should also be done well in
advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies
F pointed out. [Paras 20, 21, 23] (805-D-H; 806-A-H; 808-C-
H; 810-C-D]
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2002) 8 SCC 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587; Dr. Pradeep
G Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 654: 1984
(3) SCR 942; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru
College, Allahabad & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 22: 1985 (1) Suppl.
SCR 41; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 459: 1988 (1) SCR 351; Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad
H & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 627: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 135; Shrawan
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 775
Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services & A
Anr. & etc. (1993) 3 SCC 332; Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65: 2005 (1) SCR 380;
Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India &
Ors. (2011) 4 sec 623: 2011 (2) SCR 945 - relied on.
B
2. In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay
Kumar Sinha & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624], a Bench of this
Court took exception to the non-adherence to the time
schedules and reiterated that the admissions to medical
colleges and post-graduate courses were governed by C
the orders of this Court and the regulations issued by the
Medical Council of India, which must be strictly followed.
This Court issued a warning, that if there was any
violation in future, the same shall be treated as default
and viewed very seriously. Further, in the case of Medical
Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258], D
this Court declared two very important principles. Firstly,
it declared that mid-stream admissions should not be
permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of
compassion in review of such admissions, this Court also
held that late or mid-stream admission, even just four E
months after beginning of the classes, cannot be
permitted. [Para 24] [810-E-H]
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors.
(1990) 4 SCC 624: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 168 Medical F
Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 258:
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 - relied on.
3. Admissions based on favouritism necessarily
breach the rule of merit on the one hand, while on the
other, they create frustration in the minds of the students G
who have attained higher rank in the competitive entrance
examinations, but have not been admitted. Adherence to
the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed
schedule, refraining from mid-stream admissions and
adoption of an admission process that is transparent, H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A non-exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of
the entire scheme. The schedules prescribed have the
force of law, in as much as they form part of the
judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and
B form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of
India, which also have the force of law and are binding
on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any
authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules
to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the
c Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State
Government, University or the selection bodies
constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by
way of counseling. None of these authorities are vested
with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time
schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided
0
in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council
of India Regulations. Inter alia, the disadvantages are:-
(1) Delay and unauthorized extension of
schedules defeat the principle of admission on
E merit, especially in relation to preferential
choice of colleges and courses. Magnanimity
in this respect, by condoning delayed
admission, need not be shown by the Courts
as it would clearly be at the cost of more
F meritorious students. The principle of merit
cannot be so blatantly compromised. This was
also affirmed by this Court in the case of
Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
u2oos) s sec 1ss1.
G
(2) Mid-stream admissions are being permitted
under the garb of extended counseling or by
extension of periods for admission which,
again, is impermissible.
H (3) The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 777
in the commencement of courses etc., A
encourage lowering of the standards of
education in the Medical/Dental Colleges by
shortening the duration of the academic
courses and promoting the chances of
arbitrary and less meritorious admissions. B
(4) Inequities are created which are prejudicial to
the interests of the students and the colleges
and more importantly, affect the maintenance
of prescribed standard of education. These
inequities arise because the candidates secure C
admission, with or without active connivance,
by the manipulation and arbitrary handling of
the prescribed schedules, at the cost of more
meritorious candidates. When admissions are
challenged, these students would run the risk D
of losing their seats though they may have
completed their course while litigation was
pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.
(5) The highly competitive standards for E
admission to such colleges stand frustrated
because of non-adherence to the prescribed
time schedules. The admissions are stretched
to the last date and then admissions are
arbitrarily given by adopting impermissible F
practices.
(6) Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/
approved colleges and seats deprives the
students of their right of fair choice of college/
course, on the strength of their merit. G
(7) Preference should be to fill up all vacant seats,
but under the garb that seats should not go
waste, it would be impermissible to give
admissions in an arbitrary manner and without H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A recourse to the prescribed rule of merit. [Para
26- 27] [811-E-H; 812-A-H; 813-A-G]
Muskan Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2005) 9
sec 186 - relied on.
s 4. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the
Governments and the Universities are expected to act in
tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition
for starting of the medical courses and grant of admission
are strictly within the time frame declared by this Court
c and the regulations. However, despite warnings having
been issued by this Court and despite the observations
made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to
the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously,
matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by
different authorities and colleges and granting of
0
admission arbitrarily and with favouritism have often
invited criticism from this Court. The consistent effort of
this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence
to law is not only being thwarted by motivated action on
the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also
E been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions.
Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and
more litigation with the passage of time. [Para 28] [813-
G-H; 814-A-F]
F Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8
SCC 355: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 262; Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss)
v. DGHS (1994) 2 sec 370 - relied on.
5. The maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere
places an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it
G resolves the causes of litigation in the country. Thus, the
need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and
statutory regulations be enforced, so that all concerned
are mandatorily required to implement the time schedule
in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not even
H advisable to keep some windows open to meet a
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 779
particular situation of exception, as it may pose A
impediments to the smooth implementation of laws and
defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules
have been prescribed upon serious consideration by all
concerned. They are to be applied stricto sensu and
cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some B
economic or other interest of any institution, especially,
in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the
stated principles. Thus, the following directions in rem are
issued for their strict compliance, without demur and
default, by all concerned,. c
(i) The commencement of new courses or
increase in seats of existing courses of MBBS/
BOS are to be approved/recognised by the
Government of India by 15th July of each
calendar year for the relevant academic D
sessions of that year.
(ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately
thereafter, issue appropriate directions and
ensure the implementation and E
commencement of admission process within
one week thereafter.
(iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union
of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of
India shall issue any recognition or approval F
for the current academic year. If any such
approval is granted after 15th July of any year,
it shall only be operative for the next academic
year and not in the current academic year.
Once the sanction/approval is granted on or G
before 15th July of the relevant year, the name
of that college and all seats shall be included
in both the first and the second counseling, in
accordance with the Rules.
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A (iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof,
to which the recognition/approval is issued
subsequent to .15th July of the respective year
shall not be included in the counseling to be
conducted by the concerned authority and
B that college would have no right to make
admissions in the current academic year
against such seats.
(v) The admission to the medical or dental
colleges shall be granted only through the
c respective entrance tests conducted by the
competitive authority in the State or the body
of the private colleges. These are the methods
of selection and grant of admission to these
courses. However, where there is a single
D Board conducting the State examination and
there is a single medical college, then in terms
of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India
Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the
admission can be given on the basis of 10+2
E exam marks, strictly in order of merit.
(vi) All admissions through any of the stated
selection processes have to be effected only
after due publicity and in consonance with the
F directions issued by this Court. The practice
of giving admissions on 30th September of the
academic year is strongly deprecated. In fact,
that is the date by which, in exceptional
circumstances, a candidate duly selected as
per the prescribed selection process is to join
G the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the
directions of this Court, second counseling
should be the final counseling, as this Court
has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora
& Anr. v. UOI & Ors. ((2003) 3 SCC 366] and third
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 781
counseling is not contemplated or permitted A
under the entire process of selection/grant of
admission to these professional courses.
(vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered
from All India Quota, they should positively be
8
allotted and admission granted strictly as per
the merit by 15th September of the relevant
year and not by holding an extended
counseling. The remaining time will be limited
to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting C
from exceptional circumstances or surrender
of seats. All candidates should join the
academic courses by 30th September of the
academic year.
(viii) No college may grant admissions without duly D
advertising the vacancies available and by
publicizing the same through the internet,
newspaper, on the notice board of the
respective feeder schools and colleges, etc.
Every effort has to be made by all concerned E
to ensure that the admissions are given on
merit and after due publicity and not in a
manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts
the shadow of favouritism.
(ix) The admissions to all government colleges F
have to be on merit obtained in the entrance
examination conducted by the nominated
authority, while in the case of private colleges,
the colleges should choose their option by
30th April of the relevant year, as to whether G
they wish to grant admission on the basis of
the merit obtained in the test conducted by the
nominated State authority or they wish to
follow the merit list/rank obtained by the
candidates in the competitive examination H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R.
A collectively held by the nominated agency for
the private colleges. The option exercised by
30th April shall not be subject to change. This
choice should also be given by the colleges
which are anticipating grant of recognition, in
B compliance with the date specified in these
directions. [Paras 29- 30) [814-G-H; 815-A-H;
816-A-H; 817-A-H]
Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 366:
2003 (1) SCR 562 - relied on.
c
6. All these directions shall be complied with by all
concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of
India, Dental Council of India, State Governments,
Universities and medical and dental colleges and the
management of the respective universities or dental and
0 medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these
conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall,
without fail, invite the following consequences and penal
actions:-
E a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys
or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these
directions stricto sensu shall be liable for
action under the provisions of the Contempt
of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any
interested party to take out the contempt
F
proceedin~s before the High Court having
jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
b) The person, member or authority found
responsible for any violation shall be
G departmentally proceeded against and
punished in accordance with the Rules.
Violation of these directions or overreaching
them by any process shall tantamount to
indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and
H being unworthy of becoming a public servant.
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 783
c) Such defaulting authority, member or body A
shall also be liable for action by and personal
liability to third parties who might have
suffered losses as a result of such default.
d) There shall be due channelization of selection B
and admission process with full cooperation
and coordination between the Government of
India, State Government, Universities, Medical
Council of India or Dental Council of India and
the colleges concerned. They shall act in C
tandem and strictly as per the prescribed
schedule. In other words, there should be
complete harmonisation with a view to form a
uniform pattern for concerted action,
according to the framed scheme, schedule for
admission arid regulations framed in this D
behalf.
e) The college which grants admission for the
current academic year, where its recognition/
approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of E
the current academic year, shall be liable for
withdrawal of recognition/approval on this
ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify
such students who are denied admission or
who are wrongfully given admission in the F
college.
f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of
the second counseling, the unfilled seats from
all quotas shall be deemed to have been
surrendered in favour of the respective States G
and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the
basis of merit obtained in the competitive
entrance test.
g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A college and University to inform the State and
the Central Government/competent authority
of the seats which are lying vacant after each
counseling and they shall furnish the complete
details, list of seats filled and vacant in the
B respective states, immediately after each
counseling.
h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other
manner. [Para 31] [818-A-H; 819-A-F]
C 7. The instant case is a glaring example of calculated
tampering with the schedule specified under the
regulations and the judgments of this Court, with a clear
intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates
over and above the candidates of higher merit. The High
D Court had cancelled the admission of the appellants by
a detailed and well-reasoned judgment. However, as a
result of interim orders granted by the Court, both the
appellants had already completed four years of the
studies at the time of the High Court decision. They are
E stated to have completed their final exam now. Despite
having lost their case before the High Court, the
appellants continued to pursue their professional
courses because of the interim orders of the Court and,
therefore, the plea of inequities was raised. On 30th
F September, 2006, the Director, Medical Education,
Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to the Dean of the College,
requiring that the Jagdalpur College provide the up-to-
date list of the students admitted to it and if there were
any seats remaining vacant, guidance was to be taken
G from the Directorate of the State Government. Another
letter written by the Director, Medical Education, to the
Dean of the Jagdalpur College and referring to their letter
of the same date, which stated that two seats were .
vacant, in turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and
H the candidates be contacted over telephone. If contact
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 785
could not be established with any candidate, then the A
Jagdalpur College was directed to fill up the seats with
the candidates physically present and available at the
Jagdalpur College, according to merit. The Dean of the
Jagdalpur College, on that very day, constituted a
Committee to examine the certificates etc. of the available B
candidates and recommend the names on the basis of
merit. Again, on that very day, the Committee
recommended the names of the two appellants, declaring
them to be eligible for getting admissions. More strangely,
the Committee also noted that the fees from the c
candidates had been deposited and they could be given
admission. Then, by another letter dated 30th September,
2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director,
Medical Education that the two appellants were given
admission and the admission process for 50 seats had
0
been completed. There was nothing placed on the
records of the Court as to what steps were taken by the
Jagdalpur College to inform all the other candidates of
counseling on the last date. Also strange was the
direction of the Directorate that.the candidates should be
informed on telephone. Even if this direction was of some E
content and meaning, there is still no material to show
how many candidates were actually informed on the
telephone that there would be counseling for two seats.
Thus, the questions remained open, as to the reason for
total abandonment of the procedure of informing all F
eligible candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats
were available for admissions, who all had actually
appeared for the counseling, how only two candidates
who even according to the State Government were not
contacted on telephone, were alone present before the G
Committee and immediately found to be eligible for
admission. This entire exercise smacked of arbitrariness,
unfairness and was discriminatory ex facie. Respondent
No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in
Chhattisgarh, is the father of appellant no.2 and that H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R.
A speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted
to the appellants. [Paras 33, 36-37] [820-A-D; 821-D-H;
822-A-F]
8. The methodology adopted and the manner in
which admissions were given to the appellants would
B show that this process was neither fair nor transparent.
In fact, within a few hours, the entire process of
admission was completed, indicating that the whole
exercise was undertaken only with the object of granting
admission to the appellants, that too, as if no other
C candidates of merit were available for these two seats.
This view was entirely substantiated by the records
produced before us. The prescribed procedure for grant
of admission was given a go by and the rule of admission
on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such
o admission process. One fails to understand why no
preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant seats were
taken by any of the competent authorities involved in the
entire process of selection and admission to MBBS
courses. The students who had undertaken the PMT
E examination had been allocated seats in the college on
23rd August, 2006. Not even a single document was
placed on record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006 to
29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant
seats. Everybody waited for the last date which, in fact,
F was the date for joining the courses and not admission,
whereafter the entire machinery in the Centre, State
Government and the college acted so swiftly that within
hours, the entire admission process was concluded to
grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty of
G fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the
Jagdalpur College, the Directorate as well as the
Committee constituted for counseling/selection could
find only the candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614
suitable, completely ignoring all the candidates being
higher in merit than these two appellants, who must a,lso
H be waiting for admission to the MBBS course. Strangely,
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 787
the merit ranks of these two appellants, as given in the A
letter of the DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 were 2196 and
2203 respectively. From every angle only one conclusion
is possible that the allocation of seats was totally
arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid down. The
three members of the Selection Committee found only B
these two candidates eligible and fit to be granted
admission to the MBBS courses on the last day for
admissions. To say the least, this Committee acted in
undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure of
admission and certainly contrary to the judgments of this c
Court. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College is directed to
convey the displeasure of this Court to the members of
the Selection Committee and the same be placed on their
respective service records. [Para 38] [822-G-H; 823-A-H;
824-A]
D
9. The Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the
admission to the two appellants was not given in
furtherance to the letter dated 8th August, 2006, but validly
granted on 30th September, 2006 instead. Their report did
not even mention if they had verified the fact that notices E
had been issued to all the concerned persons on 30th
September, 2006 and if other students had been
contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was
even made on 30th September, 2006 or even prior thereto
to put these two vacant seats on the internet or notice F
board of the colleges so as to enable the students of
higher merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in
the Jagdalpur College. This aspect attained a greater
significance in view of the fact that the seats were not
allotted in the second counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd G
August, 2006. The Jagdalpur College, the Directorate of
the State Government as well as the Union of India made
no effort and did not act in coordination, to allot these
two seats to the candidates in accordance with merit in
the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee appears H
to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It
was not only expected of the Committee to examine the
documents which were made available to it, as is
recorded in the report, but also to call for all such
necessary documents which were relevant and could
s have bearing on the reference made to it. The Committee
did not even care to know why everything was
completed on 30th September, 2006 and how nobody
. else except these two appellants were available for
admission from amongst candidates in the entire State.
c [Para 39) [824-B-H; 825-A-C]
10. Another aspect of this inquiry was that, even as
on 30th September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which
quota these two vacant seats belonged to. According to
the State of Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of
D the 15 per cent All India quota which stood surrendered
after 23rd August, 2006. According to the appellants, they
were Central Pool quota seats which stood surrendered
to the State on 30th September, 2006 only. According to
the Union of India, they had not made any allotment to
E the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College from
the All India Quota, and even the code number given on
the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the
Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not
ad idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and
F who was the competent authority to allot the seats, none
of them had any business to allot these two seats in such
an arbitrary manner. Even now, there is no clarity as to
how and under what quota the Jagdalpur College has
granted admission to these two appellants. The inquiry
G report, in fact, did not help to resolve the issue and
cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any finding in
favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings
returned by the Inquiry Committee would appear to be
inconclusive, uncertain and vague. Be that as it may,
H there is no escape from returning the finding that
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 789
admission of both the appellants was made in a most A •.
improper and arbitrary manner. The whole exercise was
undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only one aim
in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be given
admission in the Jagdalpur College. [para 40] [825-C-H;
826-A] B
11. The cancellation of the admission of the
appellants was challenged by the appellants before the .
High Court, which allowed continuation of study under
interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ
petitions filed by these appellants. At that time, they had C
already completed more than four years of the MBBS
course to which they were admitted. Today, they have
already appeared for their final examination. The
Jagdalpur College ought to have declared these two
seats as being available for admission when the D
counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006 and
that there was violation of the basic principles of equality
of opportunity and of equal consideration for allotment
of seats. Candidates of higher merit stand excluded.
Another challenge which was raised on behalf of the E
appellants was that the order of cancellation dated 10th
September, 2010 was passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to these two appellants and,
therefore, the order was liable to be set aside, being
violative of principles of natural justice. It is, in fact, not F
in dispute that no specific notice was given to the
appellants before the impugned order was passed. It is
not necessary for this Court to examine this submission
in any greater detail because the appellants have now
had two occasions to put forward their claim before the G
Court. The High Court considered various aspects of the
case and gave a complete hearing to the appellants. No
prejudice was caused to them, inasmuch as they have
pursued their studies despite cancellation of admission
and have now been duly heard by the High Court, as well
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A as this Court. Hence, this ground of challenge did not, in
any case, survive, particularly since it is held the
admission to these appellants was given in a completely
arbitrary and unfair manner. [Paras 42-43] [826-C-H; 827-
A-C]
B 12. In the instant case, the fault is attributed to all the
stakeholders involved in the process of admission, i.e.,
the concerned Ministry of the Union of India, Directorate
of Medical Education in the State of Chhattisgarh, the
Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the three Members
c of the Committee which granted admission to both the
appellants on 30th September, 2006. But the students
were also not innocent. They certainly took advantage of
being persons of influence. The father of appellant No. 2
was the Director of Medical Education, State of
0 Chhattisgarh at the relevant time, the entire process of
admission was handled through the Directorate. The
students well knew that the admissions could only be
given on the basis of merit in the entrance test and they
had not ranked so high that they were entitled to the
E admission on that basis alone. In fact, they were also
aware of the fact that no other candidate had been
informed and that no one was present due to non-
intimation. Out of favouritism and arbitrariness, they had
been given admission by completing the entire admission
process within a few hours on 30th September, 2006.
F Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable.
Some party or the other would suffer a set back or
adverse consequence from the order of the Court. On the
one hand, if admissions are cancelled, the students who
have practically completed their MBBS course would
G lose their professional education as well as nearly five
years of their life spent in such education. If their
admissions are protected, then the standard of education,
the merit of the candidates and the desirability of the
persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated.
H The best solution to such problems is strict adherence
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 791
to the time schedule, procedure for selection/admission A
and strict observance of the Medical Council of India
Regulations, by all concerned. Once these factors are
adhered to, not only would such situation not arise, but
also it will prevent avoidable litigation before the Courts.
The persons who violate the time schedule to grant B
admissions in an arbitrary manner and by colourable
exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical
Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this
Court, should be dealt with strictly by punishment in
accordance with law, to prevent such mischief from c
repeating. In the instant case, the appellants had already
sat for their final examination and are about to complete
their courses. Even if their admissions are protected on
the ground of equity, they cannot be granted such relief
except on appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, 0
other candidates of higher merit have been denied
admission in the MBBS course. Secondly, they have
taken advantage of a very low professional college fee,
as in private or colleges other than the government
colleges, the fee payable would be Rs.1,95,000/- per year E
for general admission and for management quota, the fee
payable would be Rs.4,00,000/- per year, but in
government colleges, it is Rs.4,000/- per year. So, they
have taken a double advantage. As per their merit, they
obviously would not have got admission into the
Jagdalpur College and would have been given F
admission in private colleges. The ranks that they
obtained in the competitive examination clearly depict
this possibility, because there were only 50 seats in the
Jagdalpur College and there were hundreds of
candidates above the appellants in the order of merit. G
They have also, arbitrarily and unfairly, benefitted from
lower fees charged in the Jagdalpur College. On the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though
there is no legal or other infirmity in the judgment under
appeal, but to do complete justice between the parties H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A within the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
the appellants are permitted to complete their
professional courses, subject to the condition that each
one of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Jagdalpur
College, which amount shall be utilized for developing the
B infrastructure in the Jagdalpur College. Heavy cost is
imposed upon these appellants to ensure that such
admissions are neither accepted nor granted leave to
complete their medical courses in future. [Paras 48-51]
[828-G-H; 829-A-H; 830-A-H]
C 13. Accordingly, it is ordered that though, there is no
merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the
judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
t~e case, the appellants are permitted to complete their
o MBBS course as general candidates in the Government
Medical College, Jagdalpur, subject to their paying a sum
of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today. In the
event of default of payment or failure to file proof of
payment in the Registry of this Court, not only will the
E present appeal stand dismissed on merits, but the exam
results of the defaulting appellant will not be declared,
they will not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by
the Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India
shall not register their names on the rolls maintained by
F it or the State Council, as the case may be. For these
reasons, if their admissions are cancelled, there being no
claimants for these seats, the seats will go waste and the
entire expenditure incurred by the State would also be
wasted. After so many years, it would be an exercise in
G futility to cancel their admissions, which, but for the
interim orders, could be avoided. An undue advantage
from the interim orders has accrued in favour of the
appellants. The High Courts are requested to ensure
strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process
of selection and to the rule of merit. Except in very
H ·exceptional cases, the High Court may consider it
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 793
appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main A
petitions finally, subject to convenience of the Court. All
the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their
duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time
schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit
has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have B
prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at
variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus,
it is imperative for this Court to ensure proper
implementation of judgments of this Court and the
regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not c
to overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of
power by the concerned authorities/colleges. Therefore,
initiation of proceedings is directed under the provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, D
Union of India, Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education,
Dean of the Jagdalpur College, Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member
of the Selection Committee, Dr. P.O. Agarwal, Member of
the Selection Committee, Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member
of the Selection Committee, Director General, Directorate
of Health Services, Union of India. All concerned E
authorities are hereby directed to carry out the directions
and orders contained in this judgment, particularly
paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The
directions shall be applicable for the academic year 2012-
2013 itself. [Para 53) [831-C-H; 832-A-H; 833~A-C) F
State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. (2003) 7
SCC 83: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797; Bharati Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2004) 11 SCC 755: 2004 (2) SCR 775; Chowdhury Navin. G
Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC
617: 2011 (2) SCR 1071 Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay
Srivastava & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 69: 2003 (3 ) Suppl. SCR
833; A. Sudha v. University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC
537: 1988 (1) SCR 368; Amandeep Jaswal v. State of Punjab H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S. C.R.
A (2006) 9 SCC 597; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a
& Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105; 2004 (1) SCR 360; Chowdhary
Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011)
3 SCC 617; 2011 (2) SCR 1071; Medical Council of India v.
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (2004) 6 SCC 76:
B 2004 (3) SCR 1119 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 relied on Para 20
1984 (3) SCR 942 relied on Para 20
c
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 41 relied on Para 20
1988 (1) SCR 351 relied on Para 20
1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 135 relied on Para 20
D
(1993) 3 sec 332 relied on Para 20
2005 (1) SCR 380 relied on Para 20
2011 (2) SCR 945 relied on Para 23
E 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 168 relied on Para 24
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 relied on Para 24
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797 referred to Para 25
I
2004 (2) SCR 775 referred to Para 205
F
2011 (2) SCR 1071 referred to Para 25
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 833 referred to Para 25
(2005) 9 sec 186 relied on Para 27
G 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 262 relied on Para 29
(1994) 2 sec 370 relied on Para 29
2003 (1) SCR 562 referred to Para 30
1988 (1) SCR 368 referred to Para 46, 47
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 795
(2006) 9 sec 597 referred to Para 46 A
2004 (1) SCR 360 referred to Para 46,
2011 (2) SCR 1071 referred to Para 46, 47
2004 (3) SCR 1119 referred to Para 4
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4318 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2011 of the High
Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) in Writ Petition (C) No. c
5488 of 2010.
WITH
C.A. No. 4319 of 2012.
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Mukul Rohtagi, Sushil Kumar Jain, D
Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Subas
Acharya, L. Nidhiram Sharma, Siddhartha Chowdhury for the
Appellants.
Ashok Bhan, S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra, Atul Jha, Sandeep E
Jha, Dharrnendra Kumar Sinha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. The Department of Medical and Famiiy Welfare,
Government of Chhattisgarh, vi de its letter dated 10th
September, 2010 cancelled the admission granted to Akansha
Adile and Priya Gupta in the MBBS course for the academic
year 2006-07 in the Government NMDC Medical College, G
Jagdalpur (for short, the Jagdalpur College) with immediate
effect.
3. Aggrieved by this order of the Government, both the
students challenged the legality and correctness of this action
in separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A of India. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 9th August,
2011, held that admission to these petitioners had been given
ignoring more meritorious and suitable candidates, which
amounted to violation of natural justice to such other candidates
and declined to interfere in the impugned order dated 10th
s September 2010, hence giving rise to the present appeals. The
appellants had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test conducted by
the State of Chhattisgarh for the academic year 2006. The
results were declared in July 2006 and Appellant No.1, Priya
Gupta, secured general rank 1614 while Appellant No.2,
c Akansha Adile, secured general rank 3893. As the latter
belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, her rank in that
category was 396. This entrance exam was conducted by the
State as per the notification of the State Government dated 8th
March, 2006 under the 'Chhattishgarh Medical and Dental
D Graduate Examination Rules, 2006' (Chhatisgarh Chikitsha
Tatha Dant Chikitsha Snatak Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2006)
(for short, 'the Rules'). These Rules provided for all0cation of
seats and reservation, the process for admission to the vacant
seats, selection procedure as well as cancellation of admission
and the matters incidental thereto.
E
4. The State Government, vide its letter dated 14th August,
2006, had granted permission for the starting of admission
procedure for the academic year 2006-07 at the Jagdalpur
College. The annual admission capacity was 50 seats which
F were to be filled up by the candidates who had qualified PMT
2006 in the order of their merit.
5. The first counseling was held on 21-22nd July, 2006 but
obviously, at that time, the Jagdalpur College had not been given
G permission to commence admission to the MBBS course. The
counseling was conducted for medical colleges at Raipur and
Bilaspur and also for the Raipur Dental College. 18 per cent
of seats were to be reserved for allotment under the All India
Quota and the Central Pool quota. However, the State
H Government vide letter dated 21st August, 2006 is stated to
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 797
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
have informed the Jagdalpur College that two seats out of the A
total seats were reserved for allotment under the Central Pool
Quota and no seats were reserved under All India Quota. Upon
receipt of recognition, only 48 seats were offered for admission
to the students on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Central Pool
Quota seats were not filled up and were allegedly not made B
available to the candidates who appeared for that c6unseling.
The Dean of Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education, State of Chhattisgarh on 30th September, 2006 that
on that date, 48 candidates had taken admission and two
seats were lying vacant. This information was sent in response c
to inquiry by the Director, Medical Education in this regard and
directions were sought by the Jagdalpur College for filling up
of vacant seats. On the same day, the Director, Medical
Education, directed that the seats should be filled from the merit
list and the candidates could be contacted on telephone. If D
contact was not possible, admission could be given to the
candidates who were available in the Jagdalpur College. On
30th September, 2006 itself, the two vacant seats were given
to the available candidates, who are the appellants herein.
6. As already noticed, the Jagdalpur College was granted E
permission for starting the academic procedure for the session
2006-2007 by the Government of Chhattisgarh. This letter
reads as under:-
"Consequent to the letter No. U.12012/206/2005/M.E.(P.ll) F
dated 15th July, 2006 of the Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of India, the State Government
hereby grants permission for starting admission procedure
for the academic session 2006-07 in the Government
Medical College, Jagdalpur.
G
2. The annual admission capacity of the said Medical
College would be 50 seats and the candidates qualified
in P.M.T. 2006 would be given admission on the basis of
merit. Necessary action be ensured as per the aforesaid."
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A 7. 48 students under different categories were given
admission as per the list published by the Jagdalpur College
on 30th September, 2006. Vide letter dated 30th September,
2006, the Jagdalpur College and other medical colleges in the
State had been informed by the Directorate of Medical
B Education, State of Chhatisgarh that 30th September, 2006
being the last date for admission as per the judgment of the
Supreme Court, a list of the students who had been given
admission may be sent to the Directorate and guidance sought
from the Directorate, if any seats were lying vacant. The
C guidance was received by the Jagdalpur College by letter dated
30th September, 2006, which reads as under :-
"On the above subject, information about 2 vacant seats
has been given by you. In order to fill these up contact the
candidates over telephone. If contact could not be
D established with any candidate then fill up the vacant seats
from amongst the candidates available in the college
according to merit."
8. On that very date, inter alia, an order was issued by the
E Dean of Jagdalpur College constituting a Committee to give
admission to the available candidates in accordance with mer
t of the PMT. This letter reads as under:-
"As per the directions received from the Directorate of
Medical Education, the vacant seats are to be filled from
F the available candidates according to the merit in P.M.T.
For this purpose, Counseling Committee is constituted as
follows:-
1. Dr. M.S. Banjari, Assistant Vice Principal
G
2. Dr. P.O. Agarwal, Assistant Vice Principal
3. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Demonstrator
The aforesaid Committee after examining the certificates
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 799
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
etc. of the available candidates recommend for admission A
on the basis of merit."
9. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College was further informed
by the Committee, on 30th September, 2006 itself, that only two
candidates, i.e., the appellants were available and they were 8
given admission to the vacant seats. This letter reads as under:-
"ln compliance of your letter No. 233/GAMC/06 Jagdalpur,
dated 20.9.2006 the certificates etc. of the candidates
available on today's date have been examined. Only the
following two candidates, who were present have been C
found to be eligible to be given admission -
1. Ku. Priya Gupta Merit No. UR 1614
2. Ku. Akanksha AdileMerit No. SC 396 /3893
D
Prescribed fees have been got deposited from the
aforesaid candidates. They can be given admission
against the vacant seats."
10. Having granted admission to these two appellants, the E
Dean of the Jagdalpur College informed the Director, Medical
Education as follows:-
"With reference to the above, it is submitted that according
to the directions given by you in the letter under reference
the following two candidates, present on 30.9.2006, have F
been given admission in the 2 seats remained vacant in
this college.
1. Ku. Priya Gupta Merit No. UR 1614
G
2. Ku. Akanksha AdileMerit No. SC 396/3893
It is further submitted that the admission procedure for all
the 50 seats of this college has been completed."
11 . As is evident from the above letters, all the events had H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A taken place on 30th September, 2006 itself. Appellant No.2,
Akansha Adile is stated to be daughter of the Director, Medical
Education Government of Chhattisgarh, one Dr. S.L. Adile, who
is supposed to be the highest authority in the State directly
responsible for admission to the medical colleges, including
B Jagdalpur College. The appellants were given admission and
they joined the course of MBBS.
12. The State of Chhattisgarh, vide notification No. F-16-
1/2001/75/55 dated 8th March, 2006 had framed the Rules.
Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of these Rules it had been
C specifically prescribed that in all Government Medical and
Dental Colleges, there will be a reseNation of 15 per cent of
seats under All India quota and these seats will be filled on the
basis of All India Entrance Examination. Further, under sub-rule
(2), it was specified that in the said colleges, there shall be a
D prescribed quota of 3 per cent reseNed for admissions from
the Central Pool, which would be filled from the names
nominated by the concerned/authorised officer.
13. It emerges from the record that a Right to Information
E application was filed before the Directorate General of Medical
SeNices, Medical Examination Cell, New Delhi by one Dr. Anil
Khakhariya. The Assistant Director General, ME, Government
of India, had forwarded the complaint to the State Government
and the Jagdalpur College, and vide letter dated 13th
September, 2009 informed Dr. Anil Khakhariya that an inquiry
F
committee consisting of three members had been constituted
by the Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh to
examine whether the admission of the two candidates, namely
Akansha Adile and Priya Gupta, was valid or not. The
G Committee submitted its Report with the following findings:-
"A. No Admission was granted to any students in All India
quota on the basis of letter of Director General of Health
SeNices (ME), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt.
Of India no. U-11011/1/2006-ME dated 08/08/2006.
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 801
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
B. Two students namely Miss. Akansha Adile & Miss Priya A
Gupta got admission in Medical College Jagdalpur in 2006
by the state PMT merit on the last date of the admission
i.e. 30/09/2006."
14. The above inquiry report was submitted by the Dean
B
of Jagdalpur College to the Directorate. However, on 22nd July,
2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Chhattisgarh was informed by the Assistant
Director General (Medical Education), Government of India that
the admission of Akanksha and Priya had been on the basis C
of fake letters purported to be issued from the Directorate
General of Health Services (DGHS) and that their admissions
may be cancelled with immediate effect and action taken report
be submitted to the DGHS. In furtherance to this letter, the
Deputy Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Chhattisgarh, issued an order dated 10th D
September, 2010 stating that the admission of these two
appellants was not in accordance with the provisions of the
Rules and other guidelines/provisions with regard to allotment
of seats under the All India Quota and the admission was
cancelled with immediate effect. As already noticed, this letter E
of cancellation of admission was challenged by the appellants
before the High Court.
15. The Assistant Director General, (Medical Education),
New Delhi, has filed an affidavit taking up the stand that the F
Central Board for Secondary Education, New Delhi had been
entrusted with the responsibility to conduct All India Pre-Medical
and Pre-Dental Examinations, but allotment of seats would be
undertaken by the DGHS. The candidates equal to the number
of seats available for allotment, together with the wait-listed G
candidates are called for counseling. The allotment of seats is
made on merit and only two rounds of counseling are permitted.
In the counseling, the candidates have to appear in person. In
Chhattisgarh, the allotment of All India Quota seats in the Pt.
JLN Medical College, Raipur was made vide letter dated 8th
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A August, 2006 on the basis of vacancy position furnished by that
college. The allotment of Akansha Adile and Priya Gupta' in the
Jagdalpur College, was also allegedly made by the same letter
under 15 per cent All India Quota of 2006. However, the DGHS
denies making any allotment of seats to the appellants by such
8 letter.
16. Therefore, according to the Union of India, it was a
case of fake admission to the Jagdalpur College, taken up in
furtherance to a purported letter issued by the answering
respondents, which was now found fake. Vide letter dated 19th
C April, 2010, the Secretary, Department of Health and Family
Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh had been requested to
personally look into whether the allegations made by Dr. Anil
Khakharia under the Right to Information Act, as mentioned
above, were correct. Letters dated 6th August, 2010 and 24th
D August 2010 were also exchanged between the parties. In
response to the letter of the DGHS dated 6th August, 2010, the
Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, vide letter dated 24th September, 2010,
communicated the information that admissions given to
E Akansha Adile and Priya Gutpa in the MBBS course for the
academic year 2006-07 were against the norms and the Rules
and the admission was cancelled immediately by the
Department vide order dated 10th September, 2010. Further,
it is the clear stand of the Union of India that the order dated
F 10th September, 2010 was passed in accordance with law and
the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition does
not call for any interference.
17. The petitioners have impugned the judgment of the
G High Court on the following grounds:
(1) The order dated 10th September, 2010 has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice. Neither hearing nor copy of the inquiry report
was given to them prior to cancellation of
H admission.
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 803
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
(2) The report submitted by the Inquiry Committee had A
specifically recorded a finding that the admission
of both the appellants was not granted in
furtherance to the letter of the DGHS dated 8th
August, 2006 and that they had received admission
in the Jagdalpur College through the State PMT on B
the basis of merit on the last date of admission, i.e.
30th September, 2006 and only upon
recommendation of a duly constituted counseling
Committee. In face of these positive findings, the
order of cancellation of admission suffers from lega! c
infirmity and as such, the judgment of the High Court
sustaining this order is in error of law.
(3) The Jagdalpur College was granted permission to
admit students by the Central Government vide its
letter dated 15th July, 2006 and by the Government D
of the State of Chhattisgarh only on 14th August,
2006. Two seats had not been offered for
admission in the counseling held on 22nd -23rd
August, 2006 and 48 seats were offered for
admission. The two remaining seats reverted from E
the Central Pool quota to the State Government only
on 30th September, 2006 which were then given to
the appellants in accordance with the Rules.
Therefore, no fault is attributable to the appellants.
F
(4) The petitioners have already pursued the MBBS
course for a considerable period and, in fact, have
completed a major part of the course, having
written their final examination and thus, to cancel
their admission at this stage would be unjust and G
unfair. It will be inequitable to the petitioners to
cancel their admission at this stage and would
cause them irreparable loss and damage, besides
wasting the seats and public money.
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A (5) The High Court judgment is also challenged on the
ground that no candidate entitled to admission has
been denied admission and also that no candidate
has complained about or objected to the admission
of the appellants.
B
18. It deserves to be noticed that the stands taken by the
Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh in the present
petitions are not exactly the same. According to the DGHS,
Respondent No.2 herein, the letter dated 8th August, 2006 is
fake and no seats had been allotted to the Jagdalpur College.
C Seats were allotted only to Pt. JLN Medical College, Raipur.
The letter dated 8th August, 2006 is alleged to have been sent
by the Assistant Director General (ME), Ministry of Health and
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Having found the letter
to be fake, the DGHS directed cancellation of the admission
D granted to both the appellants. According to the State of
Chhattisgarh, the State had to distribute only 41 seats of the
Jagdalpur College as 15 per cent were reserved for All India
quota and three per cent for Central Pool quota. It is their stand
that Dr. S.L. Adile, Respondent No.3 is the father of Akanksha
E Adile and is the highest officer in the State for controlling pre-
medical education and post graduate admission. Seats
reserved, if any, would have reverted back on 23rd August,
2006 to Respondent No.3 and no action was taken to fill up
these seats at that time. Suspiciously, the seats were filled only
F on 30th September, 2006, by giving the seats to the appellants.
They support the case of the Union of India that the letter dated
8th August, 2006 is fake and claim that the two seats were
deliberately not offered for the second round of counseling,
which was held on 22nd-23rd August, 2006. All other
G candidates had been absent on 30th September, 2006 as they
had not been contacted. The entire admission process of the
appellants was vitiated by fraud.
19. The admission to MBBS and BOS courses, whether
at State level or All India level has ever been a matter of
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 805
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
concern for the courts. Large number of writ petitions are filed A
challenging the admission process or admission of some
particular candidates on varied grounds, like admission being
contrary to Rules, the principle of merit being disturbed,
admissions being arbitrary, etc. and there is still flagrant
violation of the dicta of this Court, as issued in various B
judgments, as well as of the Rules and Regulations wherever
framed by the State or Central Government or Medical or
Dental Council of India. The present case is one example of
violation of procedure and admissions being arbitrary .. Before
we examine the intricacies of procedural irregularities in the c
present case and the arbitrary admission of the appellants, we
must examine the background in which admissions of the
present kind are normally auestioned before the courts of
competent jurisdiction.
20. Admission to professional colleges are governed by D
the judgment of this Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation
& Ors. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. The
framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some
detail by this Court. However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep
Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 654], the E
concept of an All India quota came to be introduced while
determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such
admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the under-graduate
courses were reserved for this purpose, which came to be
modified to 15 per cent seats for All India quota in the case of F
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College,
Allahabad & Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22]. In the case of Dr. Dinesh
Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors.
[(1987) 4 SCC 459], this Court also passed directions in
relation to the manner of notification/announcement of details, G
results and counseling for admission, in that case, for post
graduate admissions, which were to be published in two
successive issues of newspapers, including one national paper
in English and at least two local papers in the language of the
State. Declaration of results would be made four weeks after H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 5 S.C.R.
A the examination and academic courses were to mandatorily
begin on the 2nd of May every year. Again, in the case of Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad
& Ors. [(1990) 4 sec 627], as some of the States were not
adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court took punitive
B action against the State of Uttar Pradesh and even
contemplated action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), this Court has
always directed that merit alone must be the criteria for
admissi9n to MBBS courses. To make such admissions more
C subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain further
directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc.
etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc.
[(1993) 3 SCC 332]. This Court clarified that candidates who
have been allotted a seat in the second round of counseling
will have to join the college within 15 days from the date of their
0
personal appearance and the whole allotment and admission
process to 15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over
before the 30tb September of each year, the remaining seats
having been surrendered back to the college/State. Various
judgments of this Court have sought to carry forward, with
E greater clarity, the fundamental requirement as stated in TMA
Pai (supra) that the admission process should be fair,
transparent and non-exploitative. Every subsequent judgment
of this Court has attempted to elucidate one or other aspect of
this principle. Having noticed that there have been irregularities
F in maintaining the prescribed schedule and that the last few
days of the declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an
exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees for
securing admission and thereby defeating the principle of
admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the
G case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
[(2005) 2 SCC 65] applied the schedule notified by the Medical
Council of India (MCI) in Appendix 'E' of the Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 and directed its
strict adherence. The said Schedule reads as under :
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 807
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
"APPENDtX. E A
TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE
ADMISSION PROCESS
FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE
Schedule for Seats filled up by Seats filled up by B
admission the Central the State
Government Governments/
through All-India institutions
Entrance
Examination C
Conduct of Month of May Month of May
entrance
examination
Declaration of By 5th June By 15th June
result of qualifying D
exam/ entrance
exam
First round of To be over by 30th To be over by 25th
counseling/ June July
admission E
Last date for Within 15daysfrom 31st July
joining the allotted the date of allotment
college and course of seats
Second round of To be over by 8th Up to 28th August
counseling for August F
allotment of seats
from waiting list
Last date for Within 15 days from 31st August
joining for the date of allotment
candidates allotted of seat (seats G
seats in second vacant after 22nd
round of counseling August will be
from the waiting list surrendered back
to the States/
colleges) H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A Commencement of 1st of August
academic session
Last date up to 30th September"
which students can
be admitted
B against vacancies
arising due to any
reason
21. The Court noticed that the holding of 10+2 examination
and declaration of results is also of importance for the entire
C admission process and, therefore, directed strict adherence to
the Schedule in all respects and by all concerned. The date of
30th September was stated not to be the date of normal
admission but is to give opportunity to grant admission against
stray vacancies. The Court clarified that adherence to the time
D schedule by everyone was a paramount concern. In that case,
the Court issued a specific direction to all the State
functionaries, particularly the Chief Secretaries and heads of
the concerned Ministries/Departments participating in the
States/Union Territories, adopting the time schedule and
E holding the State examination, to ensure declaration of results
on or before 15th June, 2005. They were also required to
ensure the appropriate utilization of All India quota, to fullest
extent, by timely reporting to the DGHS by the Deans of various
colleges or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of
F the acceptance or rejection of seats by the students after the
first counseling of All India/State Quota.
22. Further, this Court even took pains to declare the need
for adherence to the schedule for receipt of applications for
establishment of new medical colleges or seats and the
G process of the review and recommendation by the Central
Government and the Medical Council of India. In para 28 of the
judgment, the Schedule under the 1999 Regulations are
referred to, that reads as under :
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 809
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
"SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR A
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES
AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL
COUNCIL OF INDIA
B
Stage of processing Last date
1. Receipt of applications From 1st August to 31st
by the Central Government August (both days
inclusive) of any year
2. Receipt of applications by 30th September c
MCI from the Central
Government
3. Recommendations of the 31st December
Medical Council of India to
the Central Government for D
issue of letter of intent
4. Issue of letter of intent by the 31st January
Central Government
5. Receipt of reply from the 28th February
applicant by the Central E
Government requesting for
letter
of permission
6. Receipt of letter from the 15th March
Central Government by the F
Medical Council of India for
consideration for issue of letter
of permission
7. Recommendations of the 15th June
Medical Council of India to the
G
Central Government for issue
of letter of permission
8. Issue of letter of permission by 15th July
the Central Government
Note: (1) The information given by the applicant in Part I H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R.
A of the application for setting up a medical college that is
information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural
facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the applicant
shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of India through an
mspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue
B of letter of intent by the Central Government.
(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a
111edical college if the above schedule for opening a medical
college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made
without prior approval of the Central Government."
c
23. Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College &
Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 623), this Cdurt
cautioned all concerned that the schedule specified in Mridul
Dhar (supra) should be maintained and regulations should be
D strictly followed. The Court suggested that the process of
inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of
permission should also be done well in advance to allow time
for setting right the deficiencies pointed out.
24. In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay
E Kumar Sinha & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624], a Bench of this Court
took exception to the non-adherence to the time schedules and
reiterated that the admissions to medical colleges and post-
graduate courses were governed by the orders of this Court
and the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India,
F which must be strictly followed. This Court issued a warning,
that if there was any violation in future, the same shall be
treated as default and viewed very seriously. Further, in the
case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors.
[(2002) 7 SCC 258], this Court declared two very important
G principles. Firstly, it declared that mid-stream admissions
should not be permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of
compassion in review of such admissions, this Court also held
that late or mid-stream admission, even just four months 'after
beginning of the classes, cannot be permitted.
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 811
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
25. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that A
the regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these
standards cannot be deviated from. Reference can be made
to State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirlhani & Ors. [(2003) 7
SCC 83 - paras 24 and 26]; Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed
University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004) 11 B
SCC 755 - para 20]; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v.
State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 617 - paras 7, 11, 12,
14 and 18] and Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & Ors.
[(2003) 8 sec 69 - paras 14 to 21].
26. What is of greater significance is that this Court has
c
not so far considered or stated as a principle, what
consequences should follow where the Central Government, or
the State Government or Medical Council of India or the College
itself, with impunity, violate the time schedule, regulations and
order of merit to give admission to students in an arbitrary and D
nepotistic manner. Also, we must consider what preventive
steps can be taken to avoid such repetitive and intentional
defaults, as well as undue exploitation of the class of students.
Admissions based on favouritism necessarily breach the rule
of merit on the one hand, while on the other, they create E
frustration in the minds of the students who have attained higher
rank in the competitive entrance examinations, but have not
been admitted. We propose to specifically address this
concern in this judgment. From the above discussion and
reference to various judgments of this Court, it is clear that F
adherence to the principle of merit, compliance with the
prescribed schedule, refraining from mid-stream admissions
and adoption of an admission process that is transparent, non-
exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of the entire
scheme. G
27. Now, let us examine the adverse consequences of non-
adherence to the prescribed schedules. The schedules
prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part
of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and
form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India,
which also have the force of law and are binding on all
concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can
have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given
B situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India,
the Government of India, State Government, University or the
selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment
of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly
declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the
c power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or
the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of
this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations. Inter
alia, the disadvantages are:-
(1) Delay and unauthorized extension of schedules
D defeat the principle of admission on merit,
especially in relation to preferential choice of
colleges and courses. Magnanimity in this respect,
by condoning delayed admission, need not be
shown by the Courts as it would clearly be at the
E cost of more meritorious students. The principle of
merit cannot be so blatantly compromised. This was
also affirmed by this Court in the case of Muskan
Dogra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2005) 9
sec 1as1.
F
(2) Mid-stream admissions are being permitted under
the garb of extended counseling or by extension of
periods for admission which, again, is
impermissible.
G (3) The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay in the
commencement of courses etc., encourage
lowering of the standards of education in the
Medical/Dental Colleges by shortening the duration
of the academic courses and promoting the
H chances of arbitrary and less meritorious
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 813
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
admissions. A
(4). 1 Inequities are created which are prejudicial to the
interests of the students and the colleges and more
importantly, affect the maintenance of prescribed
standard of education. These inequities arise
B
because the candidates secure admission, with or
without active connivance, by the manipulation and
arbitrary handling of the prescribed schedules, at
the cost of more meritorious candidates. When
admissions are challenged, these students would
run the risk of losing their seats though they may
c
have completed their course while litigation was
pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.
(5) The highly competitive standards for admission to
such colleges stand frustrated because of non- D
adherence to the prescribed time schedules. The
admissions are stretched to the last date and then
admissions are arbitrarily given by adopting
impermissible practices.
E
(6) Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/approved
colleges and seats deprives the students of their
right of fair choice of college/course, on the strength
of their merit.
(7) Preference should be to fill up all vacant seats, but F
under the garb that seats should not go waste, it
would be impermissible to give admissions in an
arbitrary manner and without recourse to the
prescribed rule of merit.
G
28. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the
Governments and the Universities are expected to act in
tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition for
starting of the medical courses and grant of admission are
strictly within the time frame declared by this Court and the H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A regulations. It has come to the notice of this Court that despite
warnings having been issued by this Court and despite the
observations made by this Court, that default and non-
adherence to the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously,
matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by different
8 authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarily
and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this Court.
In the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 355], the Court observed that the process of
counseling cannot go on continuously for a long period and the
c resultant chain reaction should be checked. Some seats may
have to be left vacant per compulsion, but, the process of
admission should stand the test of rationality. There should be
exceptional and fortuitous circumstances to justify late
admission. In the case of Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS
[(1994) 2 sec 370], the Court was even compelled to issue
0
. notice of contempt to the Director General of Health Services
as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
be not taken for non-compliance with the scheme framed by
the Court for consideration of applications for transfer of
students between colleges and they be not punished
E accordingly. The consistent effort of this Court to direct
corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being
thwarted by motivated action on the part of the concerned
authorities, but there has also been a manifold increase in
arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in
F generating more and more litigation with the passage of time.
This Court, thus, now views this matter with greater emphasis
on directions that should be made to curb incidents of
disobedience.
G 29. The maxim Boni judicis est causas litium dirimere
places an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it resolves
the causes of litigation in the country.
30. Thus, the need of the hour is that binding dicta be
prescribed and statutory regulations be enforced, so that all
H concerned are mandatorily required to implement the time
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 815
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not A
even advisable to keep some windows open to meet a
particular situation of exception, as it may pose impediments
to the smooth implementation of laws and defeat the very object
of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed upon
serious consideration by all concerned. They are to be applied B
stricto sensu and cannot be moulded to suit the convenience
of some economic or other interest of any institution, especially,
in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the above-
stated principles. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct
of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of c
merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically,
the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of
selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their
strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned,.
(i) The commencement of new courses or increases D
in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to
be approved/recognised by the Government of
India by 15th July of each calendar year for the
relevant academic sessions of that year.
E
(ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately
thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure
the implementation and commencement of
admission process within one week thereafter.
F
(iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of
India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall
issue any recognition or approval for the current
academic year. If any such approval is granted after
15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for
the next academic year and not in the current G
academic year. Once the sanction/approval is
granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year,
the name of that college and all seats shall be
included in both the first and the second counseling,
in accordance with the Rules. H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A (iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to
which the recognition/approval is issued
subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall
not be included in the counseling to be conducted
by the concerned authority and that college would
B have no right to make admissions in the current
academic year against such seats.
(v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges
shall be granted only through the respective
entrance tests conducted by the competitive
c authority in the State or the body of the private
colleges. These two are the methods of selection
and grant of admission to these courses. However,
where there is a single Board conducting the state
examination and there is a single medical college,
D then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council
of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the
admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam
marks, strictly in order of merit.
E (vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection
processes have to be effected only after· due
publicity and in consonance with the directions
issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the
practice of giving admissions on 3oth September
F of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by
which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate
duly selected as per the prescribed selection
process is to join the academic course of MBBS/
BOS. Under the directions of this Court, second
G counseling should be the final counseling, as this
Court has already held in the case of Ms. Nee/u
Arora &Anr. v. UO/ & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and
third counseling is not contemplated or permitted
under the entire process of selection/grant of
admission to these professional courses.
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 817
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
(vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from A
All India Quota, they should positively be allotted
and admission granted strictly as per the merit by
15th September of the relevant year and not by
holding an extended counseling. The remaining
time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant B
seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or
surrender of seats. All candidates should join the
academic courses by 30th September of the
academic year.
(viii) No college may grant admissions without duly
c
advertising the vacancies available and by
publicizing the same through the internet,
newspaper, on the notice board of the respective
feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has
to be made by all concerned to ensure that the D
admissions are given on merit and after due
publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie
arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism.
(ix) The admissions to all government colleges have to E
be on merit obtained in the entrance examination
conducted by the nominated authority, while in the
case of private colleges, the colleges should
choose their option by 30th April of the relevant
year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on F
the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted
by the nominated State authority or they wish to
follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates
in the competitive examination collectively held by
the nominated agency for the private colleges. The
G
option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject
to change. This choice should also be given by the
colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition,
in compliance with the date specified in these
directions.
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A 31. All these directions shall be complied with by all
concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India,
Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and
medical and dental colleges and the management of the
respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any
B default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to
overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following
consequences and penal actions:-
(a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or
avoids or fails to strictly comply with these
c directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out
the contempt proceedings before the High Court
having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
D
(b) The person, member or authority found responsible
for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded
against and punished in accordance with the Rules.
We make it clear that violation of these directions
E or overreaching them by any process shall
tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination,
misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a
public servant.
(c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall
F also be liable for action by and personal liability to
third parties who might have suffered losses as a
result of such default.
(d) There shall be due channelization of selection and
G admission process with full cooperation and
coordination between the Government of India,
State Government, Universities, Medical Council of
India or Dental Council of India and the colleges
concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as
H per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 819
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
should be complete harmonisation with a view to A
form a uniform pattern for concerted action,
according to the framed scheme, schedule for
admission and regulations framed in this behalf.
(e) The college which grants admission for the current B
academic year, where its recognition/approval is
granted subsequent to 15th July of the current
academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of
recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to
being liable to indemnify such students who are
denied admission or who are wrongfully given
c
admission in the college.
(f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the
second counseling, the unfilled seats from all
quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered D
in favour of the respective States and shall be filled
thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in
the competitive entrance test.
(g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and
E
University to inform the State and the Central
Government/competent authority of the seats which
are lying vacant after each counseling and they shall
furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and
vacant in the respective states, immediately after
F
each counseling.
(h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner.
32. Having dealt with, in general, the directions that this
Court would issue to prevent the evils of arbitrariness and G
discrimination from creeping into these selection/admission
processes, which are required to be transparent, fair and non-
exploitatory, we shall now proceed to deal with the facts of the
present case.
H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A 33. The present case is a glaring example of calculated
tampering with the schedule specified under the regulations and
the judgments of this Court, with a clear intent to grant admission
to less meritorious candidates over and above the candidates
of higher merit. To put it simply, it is a case of favouritism and
B arbitrariness. This also chronicles how, either way, the careers
of the students are jeopardised. The High Court had cancelled
the admission of the appellants by a detailed and well-reasoned
judgment. However, as a result of interim orders granted by the
Court, both the appellants had already completed four years of
c the studies at the time of the High Court decision. They are·
stated to have completed their final exam now. Despite having
lost their case before the High Court, the appellants continued
to pursue their professional courses because of the interim
orders of the Court. Now, the plea of inequities is being raised.
D 34. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the
admission relates to the academic year 2006. The Central
Government vide its letter dated 15th July, 2006 had granted
approval and leave to admit the students to the Jagdalpur
College. Thereafter, permission to commence admission was
E granted by the Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh on 14th
August, 2006. The name of Jagdalpur College was not in the
brochure published for admission. The first counseling was, in
fact, conducted by 25th - 26th July, 2006 in which the College
did not participate and the second counseling was done on
F 22nd-23rd August, 2006.
35. In paragraph 2 of State Government's approval letter,
it was clearly stated that the capacity of the Jagdalpur College
would be 50 seats and the candidates qualified in the PMT
G 2006 would be given admission on the basis of merit. After
issuance of this letter, the college was included in the second
counseling and as already noticed, it had allocated 48 out of
the 50 seats.
36. On 8th August, 2006, a letter is stated to have been
H issued by the DGHS stating that 15 per cent of the total seats
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 821
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
reserved for All India Quota, 2006, if remaining vacant, on or A
after 23rd August, 2006, may be treated as surrendered to the
State Quota. To this letter a statement of the same date was
annexed, which allegedly gave two seats from the All India
Quota to the present appellants. As per that statement, the
seats were allocated on 8th August, 2006. From the record B
before us, it is clear that between 14th August, 2006 and 30th
September, 2006, no correspondence was exchanged between
the parties. This is despite the fact that the Government of India
had required the college and the State Au"thorities to inform
them of the details of the admissions given to the students as c
well as the details of the Quota seats, if the seats were vacant.
All India Quota seats, which had not been filled till 22nd August,
2006 would be surrendered in favour of the State. Strangely,
nothing has been placed on record to show that any of the
concerned State authorities, including the college, adhered to D
the requirement of informing the DGHS or other authorities with
regard to the status of admissions. On 30th September, 2006,
the Director, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to
the Dean of the College, requiring that the Jagdalpur College
provide the up-to-date list of the students admitted to it and if E
there were any seats remaining vacant, guidance was to be
taken from the Directorate of the State Government.
37. Another letter written by the Director, Medical
Education, to the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and referring
to their letter of the same date, which stated that two seats were F
vacant, in turn, ordered that those seats be filled up and the
candidates be contacted over telephone. If contact could not
be established with any candidate, then the Jagdalpur College
was directed to fill up the seats with the candidates physically
present and available at the Jagdalpur College, according to G
merit. The Dean of the Jagdalpur College, on that very day,
constituted a Committee of Asst. Vice-Principals and
Demonstrator of the Jagdalpur College to examine the
certificates etc. of the available candidates and recommend the
names on the basis of merit. Again, on that very day, the H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R.
A Committee recommended the names of the two appellants,
declaring them to be eligible for getting admissions. More
strangely, the Committee also notes that the fees from the
candidates had been deposited and they could be given
admission. Then, vide another letter dated 30th September,
B 2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director, Medical
Education that the two appellants have been given admission
and the admission process for 50 seats had been completed.
We must notice that there is nothing placed on the records of
the Court as to what steps were taken by the Jagdalpur College
C to inform all the other candidates of counseling on the last date.
Also strange was the direction of the Directorate that the
candidates should be informed on telephone. Even if this
direction was of some content and meaning, there is still no ·
material to show how many candidates were actually informed
D on the telephone that there would be counseling for two seats.
Thus, the questions remain open, as to the reason for total
abandonment of the procedure of informing all eligible
candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats were
available for admissions, who all had actually appeared for the
counseling, how only two candidates who even according to the
E State Government were not contacted on telephone, were alone
present before the Committee and immediately found to be
eligible for admission. This entire exercise smacks of
arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory ex facie. It is
brought to our notice and is clear from the record that the
F Respondent No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in
Chhattisgarh, is the father of Akansha Adile, Appellant no.2 and
that speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted
to ·the two appellants.
G 38. The methodology adopted and the manner in which
admissions were given to the present appellants leaves no
doubt in the mind of the Court that this process was neither fair
nor transparent. In fact, within a few hours, the entire process
of admission was completed, indicating that the whole exercise
H was undertaken only with the object of granting admission to
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 823
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the appellants, that too, as if no other candidates of merit were A
available for these two seats. This view is entirely substantiated
by the records produced before us. The prescribed procedure
for grant of admission was given a go by and the rule of
admission on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such
admission process. One fails to understand why no preventive B
steps or efforts to fill the vacant seats were taken by any of the
competent authorities involved in the entire process of selection
and admission to MBBS courses. The students who had
undertaken the PMT examination had been allocated seats in
the college on 23rd August, 2006. Not even a single document c
has been placed on record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006
to 29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant seats.
Everybody waits for the last date which, in fact, is the date for
joining the courses and not admission, whereafter the entire
machinery in the Centre, State Government and the college
0
acts so swiftly that within hours, the entire admission process
is concluded to grant the admission to the appellants. It is a
travesty of fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the
Jagdalpur College, the Directorate as well as the Committee
constituted for counseling/selection could find only the E
candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614 suitable, completely
ignoring all the candidates being higher in merit than these two
appellants, who must also be waiting for admission to the
MBBS course. Strangely, the merit ranks of these two
appellants, as given in the letter of the DGHS dated 8th August,
2006 were 2196 and 2203 respectively. From whatever angle F
this case is examined, only one conclusion is possible and that
is, that the allocation of seats was totally arbitrary and contrary
to the procedure laid down. We also would like to make a clear
mention of the displeasure of this Court to the three members
of the Selection Committee who found only these two G
candidates eligible and fit to be granted admission to the MBBS
courses on the last day for admissions. To say the least, this
Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed
procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the judgments
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A of this Court. We direct the Dean of the Jagdalpur College to
convey the displeasure of this Court to the members of the
Selection Committee and the same be placed on their
respective service records.
39. Now, we may come to the inquiry that was conducted
8
by a three member committee and which recorded the finding
that we have already noticed in paragraph 13 of the judgment.
This inquiry was initiated in furtherance to an application made
under the Right to Information Act, regarding the letter dated
C 8th August, 2006 according to which the admission in the
Jagdalpur College, particularly to these two appellants, was
made in an arbitrary and unfair manner. The stand of the Union
of India before this Court is that the letter dated 8th August, 2006
was never issued by the DGHS and is a fabricated document.
In face of that stand, we are unable to appreciate as to how
D the Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the admission to
the two appellants was not given in furtherance to the letter
dated 8th August, 2006, but validly granted on 30th September,
2006 instead. They were expected to examine this matter in
greater depth and record proper findings. We also cannot
E understand as to how the-y have recorded that both the
appellants got admission in the Jagdalpur College by State
PMT merit. Their report does not even mention if they had
verified the fact that notices had been issued to all the
concerned persons on 30th September, 2006 and if other
F students had been contacted for intimation of counseling or if
any effort was even made on 3oth September, 2006 or even
prior thereto to put these two vacant seats on the internet or
notice board of the colleges so as to enable the students of
higher merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in the
G Jagdalpur College. This aspect attains a greater significance
in view of the fact that the seats were not allotted in the second
counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Jagdalpur
College, the Directorate of the State Government as well as the
Union of India made no effort and did not act in coordination,
H to allot these two seats to the candidates in accordance with
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 825
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
merit in the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee A
appears to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report
upon examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It
was not only expected of the Committee to examine the
documents which were made available to it, as is recorded in
the report, but also to call for all such necessary documents B
which were relevant and could have bearing on the reference
made to it. The Committee has not even cared to know why
everything was completed on 30th September, 2006 and how
nobody else except these two appellants were available for
admission from amongst candidates in the entire State. c
40. Another aspect of this inquiry is that, even as on 30th
September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which quota these
two vacant seats belonged to. According to the State of
Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of the 15 per cent All
India quota which stood surrendered after 23rd August, 2006. D
According to the appellants, they were Central Pool quota seats
which stood surrendered to the State on 30th September, 2006
only. According to the Union of India, they had not made any
allotment to the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College
from the All India Quota, and even the code number given on E
the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the
Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not ad
idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and who was
the competent authority to allot the seats, none of them had any
business to allot these two seats in such an arbitrary manner. F
Even now, there is no clarity as to how and under what quota
the Jagdalpur College has granted admission to these two
appellants. The inquiry report, in fact, does not help to resolve
the issue and cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any
finding in favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings G
returned by the Inquiry Committee appear to be inconclusive,
uncertain and vague. Be that as it may, there is no escape from
returning the finding that admission of both the appellants was
made in a most improper and arbitrary manner. The whole
exercise was undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A one aim in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be given
admission in the Jagdalpur College.
41. The Government of India, taking the view that these
were All India Quota seats which had been wrongly allocated
to these two appellants in a manner contrary to the relevant
8
Rules, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 2010, directed
cancellation of the admissions of both the appellants. In
furtherance to the letter issued by the Central Government, the
State Government vide its letter dated 10th September, 2010,
actually cancelled the admissions of both the appellants.
c
42. This cancellation was challenged by the appellants
before the High Court, which allowed continuation of study under
interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ petitions filed
by these appellants. At that time, they had already completed
D more than four years of the MBBS course to which they were
admitted. Today, they have already appeared for their final
examination.
43. We are also in agreement with the findings recorded
E by the High Court that the Jagdalpur College ought to have
declared these two seats as being available for admission
when the counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006 and
that there was violation of the basic principles of equality of
opportunity and of equal consideration for allotment of seats.
Candidates of higher merit stand excluded. Another challenge
F which has been raised on behalf of the appellants before us is
that the order of cancellation dated 10th September, 2010 was
passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to these two
appellants and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside,
being violative of principles of natural justice. It is, in fact, not
G in dispute before us that no specific notice had been given to
the appellants before the impugned order was passed. We are
of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to
examine this submission in any greater detail because the
appellants have now had two occasions to put forward their
H claim before the Court. The High Court has considered various
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 827
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
aspects of the case and has given a complete hearing to the A
appellants. We have also heard the appellants m great length
and have examined their challenge to the order dated 10th
September, 2010. No prejudice has been caused to them,
inasmuch as they have pursued their studies despite
cancellation of admission and have now been duly heard by the B
High Court, as well as this Court. Hence, this ground of
challenge does not, in any case, survive, particularly in view of
the fact that we have also held that the admission to these
appellants was given in a completely arbitrary and unfair
manner. c
44. The admission of the appellants was cancelled by the
State Government which, even under the Rules, is the final
competent authority for such purposes. In the present case, the
mischief played by the concerned persons came to the notice
of the Central Government which directed cancellation of the D
seats and required the State Government to act in accordance
with law.
45. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by
way of last resort, advanced an argument that even if the E
admissions are found to be irregular by the Court, still, to
balance the equities, the Court can direct surrender or creation
of equal number of seats in the next academic year by the
Jagdalpur College. Further, it is also contended that since the
appellants have already completed substantial part of their F
professional course, it will cause serious prejudice and
irreparable loss to them if their admissions are cancelled,
particularly when the students are not at fault and it is the
Jagdalpur College or the Directorate of the State Government
which were instrumental in allotting two seats to these students. G
To further substantiate this plea, another argument advanced
is that in the Government Colleges, the admission fee is very
low and the Government spends a considerable sum in
imparting the medical education to the students of those
H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A colleges. Thus, even that expenditure of the State would be
wasted if admissions were now cancelled.
46. It was also argued with some emphasis that the
appellants are not at fault. They had taken the entrance
examination and were given seats by the concerned authorities.
8
Even if the authorities have committed some irregularity, the
appellants should not be made to suffer at the very end of their
professional course. To substantiate this premise, they relied
upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of A. Sudha v.
University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537, Amandeep
C Jaswal v. State of Punjab (2006) 9 SCC 597, R. Vishwanatha
Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105 and
Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat
& ors.(2011) 3 sec 617.
D 47. We have perused the judgments of this Court relied
upon by the petitioners. Firstly, they were delivered on their own
facts and the Court has not stated any absolute principle of law,
which would operate as a valid and binding precedent.
Secondly, in all these cases, the Court had returned the finding
E that other authorities or rule-making bodies concerned were at
fault and not the students. In the case of Chowdhary Navin
Hemabhai (supra), the Court had noticed that the fault was of
the rule making authority in not formulating the State Rules, 2008
in conformity with the Medical Council of India Regulations,
F while in the case of A. Sudha (supra), the Court found that the
Principal of the institute was at fault and he had made incorrect
statements in writing, which were acted upon by the students
bona fide.
48. In the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that
G the fault is attributed to all the stakeholders involved in the
process of admission, i.e., the concerned Ministry of the Union
of India, Directorate of Medical Education in the State of
Chhattisgarh, the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the
three Members of the Committee which granted admission to
H
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 829
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
both the appellants on 30th September, 2006. But the students A
are also not innocent. They have certainly taken advantage of
being persons of influence. The father of the Appellant No. 2,
Akansha Adile was the Director of Medical Education, State
of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time and as noticed above, the
entire process of admission was handled through the B
Directorate. The students well knew that the admissions can
only be given on the basis of merit in the entrance test and they
had not ranked so high that they were entitled to the admission
on that basis alone. In fact, they were also aware of the fact
that no other candidate had been informed and that no one was c
present due to non-intimation. Out of favouritism and
arbitrariness, they had been given admission by completing the
entire admission process within a few hours on 30th
September, 2006.
49. Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable. D
Some party or the other would suffer a set back or adverse
consequence from the order of the Court. On the one hand, if
admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically
completed their MBBS course would lose their professional
education as well as nearly five years of their life spent in such E
education. If their admissions are protected, then the standard
of education, the merit of the candidates and the desirability
of the persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated.
The best solution to such problems is strict adherence to the
time schedule, procedure for selection/admission and strict F
observance of the Medical Council of India Regulations, by all
concerned. Once these factors are adhered to, not only would
such situation not arise, but also it will prevent avoidable
litigation before the Courts. The persons who violate the time
schedule to grant admissions in an arbitrary manner and by G
colourable exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical
Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this Court,
should be dealt with strictly by punishment in accordance with
law, to prevent such mischief from repeating. In the present
case, we are informed that the students have already sat for H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A their final examination and are about to complete their courses.
Even if we have to protect their admissions on the ground of
equity, they cannot be granted such relief except on
appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, other candidates
of higher merit have been denied admission in the MBBS
B course. Secondly, they have taken advantage of a very low
professional college fee, as in private or colleges other than
the government colleges, the fee payable would be
Rs.1,95,000/- per year for general admission and for
management quota, the fee payable would be Rs.4,00,000/-
C per year, but in government colleges, it is Rs.4,000/- per year.
So, they have taken a double advantage. As per their merit,
they obviously would not have got admission into the Jagdalpur
College and would have been given admission in private
colleges. The ranks that they obtained in the competitive
examination clearly depict this possibility, because there were
0
only 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College and there are hundreds
of candidates above the appellants in the order of merit. They
have also, arbitrarily and unfairly, benefitted from lower fees
charged in the Jagdalpur College.
E 50. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
though we find no legal or other infirmity in the judgment under
appeal, but to do complete justice between the parties within
the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we would
permit the appellants to complete their professional courses,
F subject to the condition that each one of them pay a sum of Rs.5
lakhs to the Jagdalpur College, which amount shall be utilized
for developing the infrastructure in the Jagdalpur College.
51. We have not and should not be even understood to
G have stated any precedent for the cases like grant of admission
and leave to complete the course like the appellants in the
present case.
52. We are imposing heavy costs upon these appellants
to ensure that such admissions are neither accepted nor
H granted leave to complete their medical courses in future.
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 831
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
53. We would, thus, hereby issue directions on the one A
hand and order initiation of contempt proceedings against all
the defaulting parties under the provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of
India.
B
ORDER:
Accordingly, we order as follows: -
1. Though, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by
the appellants and the judgment of the High Court C
does not suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the
appellants to complete their MBBS course as
general candidates in the Government Medical
College, Jagdalpur, subject to their paying a sum o
of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today.
2. In the event of default of payment or failure to file
proof of payment in the Registry of this Court, not
only will the present appeal stand dismissed on
merits, but we also direct that the exam results of E
the defaulting appellant will not be declared, they will
not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by the
Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India
shall not register their names on the rolls maintained
by it or the State Council, as the case may be. F
3. For the reasons afore-stated, if their admissions
are cancelled, there being no claimants for these
seats, the seats will go waste and the entire
expenditure incurred by the State would also be G
wasted. After so many years, it would be an
exercise in futility to cancel their admissions, which,
but for the interim orders, could be avoided. An
undue advantage from the interim orders has
accrued in favour of the appellants. H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R.
A With all the humility at our command, we request the High
Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time
schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit.
We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier,
that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may
8
consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the
main petitions finally, subject to convenience of the Court. We
may refer the dictum of this Court in the case of Medical
Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
c [(2004) 6 sec 76, para 14] in this regard.
4. We have categorically returned a finding that all the
relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their duty/obligation
in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not
been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there
D nepotism and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of
various authorities are at variance with each other and none
admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure
proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the
regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not to
E overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the
concerned authorities/colleges.
5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings
against the following under the provisions of the Contempt of
F Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the following, to show
cause why they be not punished in accordance with law.
a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, ·union of India.
G b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education.
c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee.
H e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the Selection Committee.
PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 833
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection A
Committee.
g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union
of India.
5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which B
day the matter shall be listed before this Court. Registry shall
maintain separate file for that purpose.
6. All concerned authorities are hereby directed to carry
out the directions and orders contained in this judgment, c
particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The
directions shall be applicable for the academic year 2012-2013
itself.
54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned
authorities; forthwith, for strict compliance and adherence, D
without demur and default.
55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above
directions.
E
D.G. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "medical admission"Sign in to search