Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 451 (UTT)

Km. Ratnanjali Mishra v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-10-20

CYRIAC JOSEPH, PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2005
JUDGEMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an applicant for admission to M.B.B.S. course in the Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani. Out of the 100 seats, 50 seats are to be filled up with candidates from the State of Uttaranchal on the basis of the Uttaranchal Pre-Medical Test. The remaining 50 seats are to be filled up with candidates from the CBSE - All India PMT-2005, NRI/Foreign seats quota. All the 50 seats to be filled up with the candidates from the State of Uttaranchal were filled up before 30-08-2005. The First Counselling for the remaining 50 seats was held on 27/28-8-2005. On the basis of the counselling held on 27-8-2005 only seven candidates could be admitted. For filling up the remaining 43 seats, an advertisement was given in the News-papers on 24-08-2005 inviting applications from the candidates who have qualified in UPMT-2005, CBSE-AIMT-2005, Other State Government PMT or CPMT-2005. Since the petitioner had qualified in the Uttar Pradesh Combined Pre-Medical Test-2005 and had obtained 71% marks she submitted her application in response to the advertisement dated 24-08-2005. The Counselling for the above mentioned 43 seats was scheduled to be held on 13-09-2005. However, on 09-09-2005 it was announced by the second respondent that in view of an Order No. 2684/X-1-2005-8 (9) 2004 dated 08-09-2005 of the Government of Uttaranchal, the admission process for the vacant seats was stayed till further orders and accordingly the Counselling scheduled to be held on 13-09-2005 stood cancelled. Though the petitioner waited for the next date of Counselling, she did not receive any further communication. On 01-10-2005, the second respondent informed the candidates through its website that admission to the 43 vacant seats against the advertisement dated 24-08-2005 was cancelled and that the application fees submitted by the applicants would be refunded by way of A/c Payee Demand Draft. 2. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the admission process in respect of the remaining 43 seats, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the second respondent's order dated 01-10-2005 and for a direction to the second respondent .to admit the petitioner in the MBBS course 2005-2006 in the Uttaranchal. Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani. 3. This writ petition was admitted on 18-10-2005 and in view of the urgency of the case, the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal, who accepted notice for respondent no. 1, Mr. Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani. 3. This writ petition was admitted on 18-10-2005 and in view of the urgency of the case, the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal, who accepted notice for respondent no. 1, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, who accepted notice for respondent no.2 and Mrs. Anjali Bhargav, Advocate, who accepted notice for Respondents nos. 3 and 4 were directed to get instructions immediately and the case was posted to this date i.e. 20-10-2005. The Principal Secretary/Additional Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of Uttaranchal was directed to be present in Court along with the file relating to Government Order No. 2684/X-l 2005-8(9)/2004 dated 08-09-2005 referred to In Annexure 4. In compliance with the order dated 18-10-2005, the Additional Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of Uttaranchal is present in Court and he has made available the relevant file. 4. We have heard Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for Respondent no. 1, Mr. R. Dobhal, learned counsel for Respondent no. 2 and Mrs. Anjali Bhargav, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials placed on record and the contents of the Government File made available to the Court, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. It is seen that as per an Order No. U.12012/77/2001-ME (P_ II) dated 15-07-2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, in exercise of its powers under Sections 10-A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the renewal of permission to Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani, in respect of admission of second batch of students for the academic year 2005-2006 was granted only subject to further verification of the facilities available in the college vis-a-vis the commitment made by the Government. Such a conditional renewal of permission was granted by the Government of India in view of the letter dated 11-07-2005 of the Medical Council of India, referring to the Inspection Report of the Medical Council of India dated 8-9th June, 2005 for renewal of permission for admission of second batch of students in Uttaranchal Forest Trust Hospital Medical College, Haldwani for the academic year 2005-2006 and the compliance report furnished by the Secretary, Forest Hospital Trust Medical College, Haldwani. In the said letter of the Medical Council of India, it was observed that only some of the deficiencies had been rectified/partially rectified, and with regard to others, it was stated that the same would require physical verification. On the basis of the permission granted in the order dated 15-07-2005 of the Government of India, the second respondent College started the admission process. Fifty seats to be filled up with candidates from the State of Uttaranchal were filled up before 30-08-2005. Out of the fifty remaining seats, 7 seats were filled up on the basis of the Counselling held on 27-28 August 2005. When Counselling for filling up the remaining 43 seats was scheduled to be held on 13-09-2005, the Government of Uttaranchal was instructed by the Government of India that the second respondent may be directed not to proceed with fresh admission. Pursuant to the said instruction from the Government of India, Government of Uttaranchal sent a letter dated 8th September 2005 directing the second respondent that further admission may not be made against the remaining 43 vacant seats. In compliance with the said direction of the Government, the second respondent first cancelled the Counselling scheduled to be held on 13-09-2005 and later, on 01-10-2005, cancelled the admission process in respect of the remaining 43 seats. It is also seen that the above mentioned instruction from the Government of India was based on a communication from the Medical Council of India which read as follows: "It was further decided to recommend to the Central Government for issuance of appropriate instructions by the Central Government to the College Authorities not to Proceed with any fresh admissions in the academic session 2005-2006 since they failed to fulfil the commitment made on behalf of the State Government to provide all the facilities as per Medical Council of India Regulations within the stipulated time." 6. Thus, it is clear that the Government of India, on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, instructed the Government of Uttaranchal not to fill up the remaining 43 seats in view of the failure of the Government of Uttaranchal and the second respondent college to fulfil the commitment to provide all the facilities as per the Medical Council of India Regulations within the stipulated time. It is also clear that the earlier permission granted by the Government of India was only conditional and subject to fulfillment of commitment to rectify the deficiencies and to provide all the facilities as per Medical Council of India Regulations within the stipulated time. Since the Medical Council of India, on further inspection and verification, found that the deficiencies were not rectified and all the facilities as per Medical Council of India Regulations were not provided, the decision of the Medical Council of India and Government of India not to permit the second respondent to admit candidates against the remaining 43 seats cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 7. The petitioner has not got any fundamental right or enforceable legal right for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the second respondent college. She can have a legitimate grievance only if she was denied admission arbitrarily or in violation of the rules relating to admission. In this case, the petitioner could not establish that any of the Rules relating to admission was violated or that the decision of the respondents not to fill up the remaining 43 seats is arbitrary. There is also another hurdle for the petitioner in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that admissions to the professional courses should be completed within the time stipulated by the Medical Council of India. It is not disputed that as per the Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, admissions to the M.B.B.S. course should be completed on or before 30th September of the year concerned. Since the said limit prescribed by the Medical Council of India has already been crossed, this Court cannot direct the second respondent to admit the petitioner to the M.B.B.S. course now. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in completing the admission was not due to any fault of the petitioner, but due to the decision of the Government of Uttaranchal to stay the admission process after it was started. He also submitted that the Medical Council of India and the Government of India decided not to permit further admissions only on account of the failure of the second respondent and the Government of Uttaranchal to fulfil the commitment to rectify the deficiencies and to provide all the facilities as per the guidelines of the Medical Council of India within the stipulated time. We agree that the delay was not due to the fault of the petitioner. But the fact remains that the decision of the Medical Council of India and the Government of India not to permit further admission in the remaining vacant seats was for valid and sufficient reasons and the said decision is not liable to be quashed by this Court. So long as the said decision stands, the second respondent cannot make further admissions in the College. Moreover, irrespective of the reason for the delay in completing admission, the medical colleges are bound to strictly adhere to the time schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India. In the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court no exemption is permitted on the ground of any particular reason for the delay in completing the admissions. In our view, In the 'light of the judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject, this Court has no discretion to direct admissions to the 'M.B.B.S. Course after 30th September of the year concerned, whatever be we reasons for the delay in completing the admissions, 9. I" the light of the above discussion there is no merit the writ petition, The writ petition is dismissed.