Education/Educational Institutions: Admission to MBBS/BDS Courses – Conduct of centralized counselling – On facts, admission of students to 1st year Professional MBBS Course for Academic Session 2016-17 in the Medical College – Admission carried out in contravention of the Notification that provided that admission were to be done only through the centralized admission process and not by way of private counselling – 67 students admitted by the Medical College, discharged by Medical Council of India – Challenge to – Matter reached till Review Petition in Supreme Court – Review petitioners’ case that having qualified NEET exam, they became eligible to get admission; that they were admitted through counselling conducted by the medical college; and that they have cleared 1st and 2nd year examination – Held: Notification issued by the State on the basis of the law laid down by this Court clearly provided that the admissions were to be done only through the centralized admission process – Medical College in contravention of the said Notification conducted private counselling, which was not at all permissible in law – Admissions conducted through the said private counselling per se illegal – Students cannot be said to be ignorant about the Notification issued by the State – In such a situation, no sympathies can be shown to such students who have entered through backdoor.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though minority institutions were allowed to admit the students of their community based on Centralized Counselling held by the State on the basis of NEET 2016, the same was to be done without deviating from the merit of the said students. The Notification 22.08.2016 is only an administrative instruction and therefore not binding, cannot be accepted. [Para 21, 22][1013-H; 1014-A-B]
1.2 The private counselling by Glocal Medical College was conducted contrary to the Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which Notification, in turn, was based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre case, decided on 2.5.2016. Not only that, but this Court by order dated 22.9.2016 had further clarified the position. It will further be pertinent to note that the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 15.9.2016 had negated the challenge to the Notification dated 22.8.2016. [Para 25, 26][1016-B-D]
1.3 In the light of this position, it was not at all permissible for the Glocal Medical College to have conducted private counselling. The admissions which were conducted through the said private counselling cannot be termed as anything else but per se illegal. Though there is sympathy with the students, but this Court will not be in a position to do anything to protect the admissions, which were done in a patently illegal manner. [Para 27, 28][1016-D-E]
1.4 It will not be possible to consider the cases of the review petitioners sympathetically. The Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the law laid down by this Court clearly provided that the admissions were to be done only through the centralized admission process. Glocal Medical College in contravention of the said Notification conducted private counselling, which was not at all permissible in law. The students cannot be said to be ignorant about the Notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In such a situation, no sympathies can be shown to such students who have entered through backdoor. Apart from that, MCI vide order dated 27.1.2017 had discharged the said students, who were not admitted through centralized admission process. It is pertinent to note that 25 students admitted in the same college, who were admitted through the centralized admission process, were very much absorbed by the DGME in other colleges. As such, the contention of the review petitioners that they came to know about the discharge order dated 27.1.2017 issued by MCI only when they had filed a petition in the High Court in 2019 does not stand to reason. [Para 35, 36][1018-G-H; 1019-A-D]
1.5 Insofar as the contention with regard to the interim order passed by this Court dated 20.3.2017 is concerned, the same would clearly show that though the students were permitted to appear in the examination, their results were directed not to be published. There is no other order modifying the said order. It is difficult to appreciate as to how the results of the students were declared for the 1st year MBBS examination, how they were admitted in the 2nd year MBBS course and how they cleared the 2nd year MBBS examination, despite the fact that MCI had discharged the students vide order dated 27.1.2017. Insofar as the observations of this Court in order dated 18.9.2017 in the writ petition filed by Glocal Medical College challenging the discharge order is concerned, the observation could not be construed to have vacated or modified the specific directions issued by this Court on 20.3.2017. [Para 37-39][1019-D-F] Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016) 7 SCC
353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey and Others (2016) 9 SCC 412; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Others (1993) 4 SCC 401; Gurdeep Singh v. State of J & K and Others (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 188; K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2001) 10 SCC 264 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 593; Mahatma Gandhi University and Another v. GIS Jose and Others (2008)
17 SCC 611 : [2008] 13 SCR 201; National Council for Teacher Education and Another v. Venus Public Education Society and Others (2013) 1 SCC 223 : [2012] 10 SCR 919 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.