Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 648 (GAU)

L. Manikanta Singh v. State of Manipur and Anr.

2006-07-19

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
By this writ petition, the petitioner is asking for the following reliefs: “(i) call for the records of the case and issue rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the prayer prayed for by the petitioner shall not be granted. And, after hearing them make the rule absolute. (ii) issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents by directing them to allot a seat for admission into MBBS/BDS course to the petitioner for the Academic Session 2006-2007 as have been done in respect of the similarly situated incumbents. (iii) pass any other appropriate writ/order/direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the interest of justice. (iv) award cost of the petition to the petitioner. [2] Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned counsel assisted by Mr.Tarunkumar, Advocate for the petitioner and also Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned GA for respondent nos.1 and 2. [3] The factual panorama leading to the filing of the present writ petition, for the reliefs mentioned above, is that: For the session 2003-2004 for the State of Manipur, the Central Government allotted 21 (twenty one) seats for the MBBS/BDS Course in various colleges. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal (for short RIMS) is under the North Eastern Council and Council allotted 34 (thirty four) seats for the MBBS/BDS Course in the RIMS for the session 2003-2004. Further two seats were allotted/allocated from the central pool and three seats in the same discipline in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Out of the total seats in the two courses i.e. MBBS/BDS Course allocated for the State of Manipur, the State Government of Manipur allocated/distributed 39 (thirty nine) seats for the general candidates, 18 for ST candidates and 1 (one) each for the meritorious sports person and wards of Armed Forces personnel and Ex-serviceman. The Governor of Manipur in super-cession of all the existing Rules in this regard was pleased to make the Rules called “the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules, 1992 (for short MBBS/BDS Selection Rules, 1993). The MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 provides, interalia, for nomination of candidates for admission in MBBS/BDS Course in different medical colleges against the seats available as State quota. The selection test for nomination of candidates is to be held according the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993. The MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 provides, interalia, for nomination of candidates for admission in MBBS/BDS Course in different medical colleges against the seats available as State quota. The selection test for nomination of candidates is to be held according the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993. Under Rule 17 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 nomination of candidates to the available seats shall be in order of merit in which their names appear in the selection list. The Government of Manipur issued a Notification dated 10.6.2003 inviting applications from the intending candidates for selection as Government nominee for admission to MBBS/BDS Course against the reserved seats of Manipur in various medical and dental colleges for the year, 2003-2004. Subject to the provisions of Rule 8, 16 and 18 of the MBBS/BDS Rule, 1993 candidates will be considered by the Government for nomination to the available seats in order of merit in which their names appear in the select list. At the time of issuing the said notification dated 10.6.2003 inviting applications from the intending candidates for selection as Government nominee, MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 which had been amended under the MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 vide notification dated 23.6.2003 was in force. Relevant extract of the MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 are quoted hereunder: “ .. .. . 3. Amendment of Rule 6: Clause (viii) of Rule 6 of the Principal Rules shall be substituted by the following: “(viii) passed individually in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and obtained not less than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the qualifying examinations (or at the higher examination) whereas in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST the minimum marks shall be 40% in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together.” Substitution of Rule 16: For rule 16 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely,- “16(i) The minimum qualifying percentage of aggregate marks in the Entrance Examination for inclusion in the select list or waiting list shall be 50% for general candidates and 40% for ST and SC candidates. (ii) The Selection Board shall prepare Select Lists in order of merit based on the Entrance Examination separately for candidates belonging to General Category, SC, ST, Meritorious Sportsperson and Children of Armed Forces Personnel/Exservicemen equal to the expected number of seats for each category and a waiting list of candidates equal to 20% of the expected number of seats. The Select Lists and Waiting Lists shall be declared by the Selection Board and shall be submitted to the Government.” Amendment of Rule 17.- For rule 17 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely,- (iii) In the event of sufficient number of candidates of a particular category not being available to fill up the available seats, the vacant seats may be transferred to candidates of the other categories as below: (a) Vacant seats of ST may be filled up by SC candidates and vice-versa; (b) Vacant seats of Meritorious Sportspersons or Children of Armed Forces Personnel/Ex-servicemen may be filled by General candidates; (c) Vacant seats of General candidates may be filled by SC/ST candidates and viceversa.” [4] The petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared for the selection test/Examination for nomination of candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the session 2003-2004 against the reserved seats of Manipur in pursuance of the said notification dated 10.6.2003 on 29.6.2003. The result of the selection test/examination was declared on 01.07.2003 and the list of successful candidates in order of merit was published. It contained 39 (thirty nine) candidates of general category, 1 (one) from the ST, 1 (one) from the SC. Out of the said 18 (eighteen) reserved seats for the ST candidates only 1 (one) had been qualified in the selection test. No candidate from the category of meritorious sports person and wards of Armed Forces Personnel/Ex serviceman had qualified. According to the result of the selection test/examination held on 29.6.2003 and declared on 1.7.2003 as stated above. The Selection Board also recommended a waiting list of the candidates consisting of 6 (six) candidates of general category in order of merit, 1 (one) from SC category. The name of the petitioner appears at sl.no.2 of the wait listed candidates. For easy reference list of the wait listed candidates recommended by the Selection Committee are quoted hereunder: “RECOMMENDED WAITING LIST OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF THE MANIPUR MBBS/BDS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 2003-2004 held on 29th June, 2003. The name of the petitioner appears at sl.no.2 of the wait listed candidates. For easy reference list of the wait listed candidates recommended by the Selection Committee are quoted hereunder: “RECOMMENDED WAITING LIST OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF THE MANIPUR MBBS/BDS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 2003-2004 held on 29th June, 2003. Merit List Name of Candidat Roll No. Total Secured Marks Remarks GENERAL CANDIDATES: 1. Naorem Suresh Singh 280 216. 2. Laishram Manikanta 501 214. Singh (writ petitioner). 3. Khundrakpam 35 213 Yoihenba 4. Thokchom Bishwajit 122 213 Singh. 5. Loitongbam Bhume Showri Devi. 1624 212 6. Tikendrajit Ningom bam 192 212 SCHEDULED TRIBE CANDIDATES. 1. Nil 2. 3. SCHEDULED CAST CANDIDATE 1. Naorem Santa Singh SC-1973 174 CHILDREN OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL/EXSERVICEMEN: 1. Nil MERITORIOUS SPORTS PERSON CANDIDATE 1. Nil. Nomination of Candidates shall be subject to availability of seats and verification of original certificates and documents. N.B. The inter-se-merit is drawn up strictly in accordance with the provision of Rule 16(iv) of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) and amendment Rules, 1993 where the total marks obtained are equal.” [5] After only one ST candidate was found qualified in the selection test/examination held on 29.6.2003 for the 18 (eighteen) seats reserved for the ST candidates and also no candidate from the category of meritorious sports person or wards of the Armed Forces Personnel/ex-servicemen found qualified for nomination according to the result of the selection test declared on 1.7.2003, the State Government hastily, further amended the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 vide Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules 2003 under notification dated 5.7.2003 which reads as follows: “MANIPUR GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No.110 Imphal, Saturday, July 5, 2003 (Asadha 14, 1925) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 5th July, 2003 No.9.7.2003-M (MBBS/BDS) - The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following Rules to amend the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules, 1993, namely,- THE MANIUR MBBS/BDS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION (SELECTION OF CANDIDATES) AMENDMENT RULES, 2003 1. Short title and commencement: (i) These Rules may be called the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003. They shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Amendment of rule 17- Clause (iii) of rule 17 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules shall be deleted. 3. Short title and commencement: (i) These Rules may be called the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003. They shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Amendment of rule 17- Clause (iii) of rule 17 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules shall be deleted. 3. Amendment of rule 20- For rule 20 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely,- “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Government may relax any of the provisions of these Rules in the public interest.” [6] The State Government by exercising the power under the said MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 notified on 5.7.2003 relaxed the minimum marks prescribed under the MBBS/BDS Rule, 1993 for nomination of candidates for admission in the MBBS/BDS Course and published a subsidiary list wherein as many as 17 (seventeen) candidates from ST, 2 (two) from other categories had been included though they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the selection test held on 29.6.2003 for admission in the MBBS/BDS Course for the Session 2003-2004. Two writ petitions were filed i.e. WP(C)No.1007 of 2003 by (1) Thokchom Bishwajit Singh, sl.no.4 in the wait list of the recommended candidates consisting of six candidates, (2) Km.Loitongbam Bhumeshowri Devi, sl.no.5 in the wait listed candidates, (3) Shri Ningombam Tikendrajit Singh, sl.no.6 in the wait listed candidates and (4) Km Sonika Yumnam; and WP(C) No.1091 of 2003 by 5 (five) Scheduled Caste Candidates for challenging the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 notified on 5.7.2003 and also the said subsidiary list consisting of 17 (seventeen) ST candidates and one candidate each from the meritorious sports person and children of Armed Forces personnel/Ex servicemen before this court. The learned Single Judge had allowed the said two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No.1007 of 2003 and 1091 of 2003 by passing a common judgment and order dated 12.9.2003, operative portion of which reads as follows: “31. In the result, (i) the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003 published on 5th July, 2003 is quashed; (ii) consequently, the subsidiary list prepared thereunder is also quashed, admission of the successful candidate shall stand vacated and the seats shall be filled up by nomination of candidates from the merit list (wait list) 32. In the result, (i) the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003 published on 5th July, 2003 is quashed; (ii) consequently, the subsidiary list prepared thereunder is also quashed, admission of the successful candidate shall stand vacated and the seats shall be filled up by nomination of candidates from the merit list (wait list) 32. The operation of the second limb of the order shall remain suspended for a period of six weeks and, in the meantime, the State Government may, if so advised, approach the Medical Council of India for relaxation of the qualifying marks in so far as the ST candidates are concerned. The limited stay is granted in consideration of the great hardships the ST candidates and others will face for no fault on their part. [7] By the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2003 the Manipur MBBS/BDS Amendment Rules, 2003 published on 5.7.2003 as well as the subsidiary list consisting of 17 ST candidates, one each from meritorious sports person and children of Armed Forces personnel/ex servicemen were quashed and directed the State Government to nominate candidates from the merit list (wait list) i.e. the present writ petitioner and others for admission in the MBBS/BDS Course for the session 2003-2004 against the seats to be vacated by the candidates whose names appear in the subsidiary list. As per the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2003, it is clear that nomination of candidates from the merit list i.e. wait list should be according to the merit in consonance with the Rule 17 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993. [8] Against the said common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2003, altogether five writ appeals were filed by the State Government, the Scheduled Tribe candidates and meritorious sports person candidates before the Division Bench of this Court. Two Writ Appeals filed by the State Government were registered as WA No.456 of 2003 and WA No.47 of 2004 respectively. All the writ appeals were disposed by the learned Division Bench by a common judgment and order dated 21.5.2004, relevant portion of which are quoted hereunder: “.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26. It would be appropriate in order to focus the attention to the salient features of the controversy to formulate the points for determination. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26. It would be appropriate in order to focus the attention to the salient features of the controversy to formulate the points for determination. We paraphase the questions as hereunder: (1) Is the 2003 Rules invalid being vitiated by lack of legislative competence of the State of Manipur and is nonest and inoperative being repugnant to the Regulations in view of Article 254 of the Constitution of India? (2) Are the subsidiary lists and the waiting lists unsustainable being in derogation of Regulation 5 of the Regulations? (3) Whether the admission of the candidates in the subsidiary list and the waiting list are liable to be cancelled? If yes, whether the candidates from the original merit list and the waiting list are entitled to be admitted against the seats that would resultantly fall vacant? POINT NO.1 The Rules and for that matter, 2003 Rules have been framed by the Governor of Manipur in exercise of powers as available under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The legislative powers of the Parliament and the State Legislature have been delineated under the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. The parliament has been conferred the exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in List I of the said Schedule, whereas the State Legislature has the competence to legislate on subjects in List II. Subject to the conditions contained in Article 246(2), the Legislature of any State also has the power to make laws on any subject covered by entries in list III of the said Schedule. Entry 66 in List I and Entry 25 of the List III relevant for the instant case are set out herein below: List I Entry 66- “Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. List III Entry 25- Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.” Availing - the constitutional empowerment as above, the Parliament has enacted the Act and the Regulations have been framed under Section 33 thereof. The Rules have been framed on the subject medical education covered by Entry 25 of List III. The Rules have been framed on the subject medical education covered by Entry 25 of List III. Regulations 4 and 5 with which we are concerned deal with the admission and selection of students to the Medical colleges for the MBBS course. The Rules also envisage the scheme for selection for nomination for admission to the said course in different colleges against the seats allotted to the State of Manipur. Having regard to the dichotomy in the legislative powers under the Constitution and the edicts contained in Articles 246 and 254 thereof, a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to any matter enumerated in the concurrent list if is repugnant to any earlier parliament enacted legislation or an existing law on the same subject, the law made by the parliament would prevail and consequently the law made by the legislature of the State to extent of repugnancy would be void. 27. The relevant provisions contained in the Rules following the first amendment in 2003 and the extent of the impugned amendments has been noticed herein above. The provisions of the Rules before the impugned amendment were in tune with Regulations 4 and 5 of the Regulations. By the said amendment, Rule 17(iii) dealing with the adjustment of seats in case of non availability of sufficient number of candidates of a particular category was done away with. The power of relaxation of the Government was also made more comprehensive. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Regulations to suggest that the amendments are contrary thereto. Indeed, no argument has been advanced before us that the impugned amendments per se are violative of the Regulations. Exception has been taken of the notification dated 5.7.2003 whereby in exercise of the power of relaxation following the amendments, the government has relaxed the cut off marks provided under clause 16(1) of the Rules in respect of candidates belonging to the following categories in the last entrance examination held in 2003: (i) Scheduled Tribe (ii) Children of Armed forces personnel/Exservicemen (iii) Meritorious sportsperson .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28. Rule 6 as well as Rule 16(1) which are in consonance with the Regulations 4 and 5 have not been touched by the impugned amendments. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28. Rule 6 as well as Rule 16(1) which are in consonance with the Regulations 4 and 5 have not been touched by the impugned amendments. It is axiomatic that the Act being a Central Legislation and the Regulations having been framed in exercise of power conferred thereby, the Rules if in conflict with the Regulations in view of the Constitutional scheme referred to above, has to be declared as void to the extent of repugnancy. On a reading of the Rules as well as the impugned amendments vis-à-vis the Act and the Regulations, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the amendments ex facie are repugnant to the Regulations. In these premises, we answer the question in the negative. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34. It has been submitted before us that the State of Manipur had been conducting the competitive entrance examination for selection for nomination from before the framing of the Rules in the year 1993, but before the amendment thereof on 23.6.2003, no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for such examination. The Regulations were framed in the year 1997 and thereafter in 2003 as above; Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) were amended to the tune of the Regulations presumably realizing the above difficulties. Consequently, in order to maintain consistency with regard to the criteria uniformly applicable for the purpose of nomination as well as admission which is the end of objective of the whole exercise, the inescapable conclusion is that the Regulations are applicable to the State of Manipur for nomination of its candidates against the seats allotted to it for different Medical colleges of the country. The attempted differentiation between the nomination and the admission does not commend for our acceptance. .. .. …. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. The provisions of the Rules contained in Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) are not requirements in addition to those in Regulation 5, but have been incorporated to bring the Rules inconformity with the Regulations. .. .. …. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. The provisions of the Rules contained in Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) are not requirements in addition to those in Regulation 5, but have been incorporated to bring the Rules inconformity with the Regulations. Any lacuna in the Rules in that regard at the time of initiation of the process for selection cannot ensure to the benefit of the candidates who had not fully qualified in terms of prescription to the Regulation 5 (2) and 5(5)(ii) in the entrance test. The contention that the amendments to the Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) were occasioned on 23.6.2003, ie after the notification on 10.6.2003 setting the nomination process in motion does not advance their case in terms of the existing requirement of Regulation 5. The communication No.U.14014/4/2003-M.E.III dated 8.8.03 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare relief upon by Mr.Misra indicates the broad guidelines for selection of candidates to the central pool seats permitting the State Governments to nominate their candidates on the basis of merit system devised by them. The communication dated 9.12.86 referred to therein lays down 50% marks (40% in respect of SC and ST candidates) in aggregate in English, Physics and Chemistry in the qualifying examination or as amended by the Council to be the eligibility criteria. Apart from the fact that the Regulations were framed in 1997, in face of the clear prescriptions of the Regulations governing the issue, the above communication cannot be sanctioned any primacy over the mandate of Regulation 5. We, therefore hold that Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) are applicable in the present case for selection for nomination and any departure therefrom cannot be sustained in law. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 38. Noticeably, the Regulations provide a relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks while judging the merit of the reserved category candidates be it so, on the basis of the qualifying examination or the competitive entrance test. While for the general category candidates the qualifying marks is 50%, for the reserved category candidates, it is 40%. Reserved category candidates are therefore advantaged by a relaxation of 10% marks. Some compromise on merit is already made. The relaxation is agreeable on the touchstone of protective discrimination in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, as the Constitution permits. While for the general category candidates the qualifying marks is 50%, for the reserved category candidates, it is 40%. Reserved category candidates are therefore advantaged by a relaxation of 10% marks. Some compromise on merit is already made. The relaxation is agreeable on the touchstone of protective discrimination in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, as the Constitution permits. Further relaxation in the above states of things, in our mind cannot be protected under the cover of Article 15(4), lest the balance accentuated in Dr.Preeti Srivastava (Supra) is effaced. Compensatory/protective discrimination cannot be raised to such a level that it totally obliterates the minimum qualifying level for admission to an academic course. By the impugned action, no minimum qualifying marks in effect had been fixed for the exempted candidates. It therefore is in sharp contrast to the law propounded by the Apex court as above in the context of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. In any view of the matter, however, the candidates belonging to the meritorious sportsperson and children of armed forces personnel/Ex-service man categories cannot claim cover under Article 15(4). No argument in support thereof has been advanced before us and rightly so. The impugned subsidiary list and the waiting list therefore, according to our considered opinion cannot stand protected under Article 15(4) as well. In the wake of the above discussion and deductions, the admission of the candidates in the subsidiary list and the waiting list are liable to be cancelled, they having admittedly failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed under Regulation 5(5)(ii) of the Regulations. POINT NO.3 The question that arose in MCI Vs State of Karnataka (supra) was whether the authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges there vested in the State by virtue of two statutory enactments. Answering in the negative, the Apex Court held that the Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act were statutory in nature and for the purposes covered by it, the same had mandatory force. It held that it was the Council which would prescribe the particulars of MBBS students to be admitted in the medical course and the Central Government alone could direct an increase in the number, but only on the recommendations of the Council. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 44. It held that it was the Council which would prescribe the particulars of MBBS students to be admitted in the medical course and the Central Government alone could direct an increase in the number, but only on the recommendations of the Council. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 44. In the result, the point No.1 is answered in the negative. Point No.2 in the affirmative and Point No.3 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The impugned subsidiary lists and the waiting lists though quashed in view of the emphatic and imperative guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Singh (supra) and the string of orders passed by it consistently thereafter together with the consequential steps taken by the Council and the Central Govt insisting on strictly adherence of the calendar in compliance of the said guidelines, we decline to issue any directions for admission of the candidates from the original lists against the seats resultantly falling vacant. 45. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the findings recorded hereinabove. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein stand modified accordingly. No costs.” [9] The learned Division Bench by the common judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed in the said WA No.422/03 and batch had confirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2003 for quashing the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 notified on 5.7.2003 and also quashing of subsidiary list consisting of 17 ST candidates, 1 candidate each from the meritorious sports person and children of Armed Force Personnel/Ex servicemen. But the portion of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 12.9.2003 directing the State respondents to nominate candidates from the meritorious list (wait list) which include the name of the petitioner against the seat to be vacated by the candidates whose names appear in the subsidiary list for the Session 2003-2004 was set aside by the learned Division Bench in its common judgment and order dated 21.5.2004. [10] Against common judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 21.5.2004 altogether 4 (four) SLPs were filed, i.e. SLP No.17269-70 of 2004, filed by the State, SLP No.16201/04 was filed by the General candidates and SLP No.26083/04 filed by the ST candidates, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all the SLPs were converted to Civil Appeals being (1) Civil Appeal No.5944-5945/2005 filed by the State and (2) Civil Appeal No.5943/05 filed by the general candidates and (3) Civil Appeal No.5946/05 filed by the ST candidates. In SLP No.16201/04 (Civil Appeal No.5943/04) filed by the general candidates on the applications filed by four candidates namely, (1) Rosy Kahkashan Chisti, (2) Manju Devi Kambam, (3) N.Diana Devi and (4) Naorem Suresh Singh had been impleaded as appellant nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. Admittedly, the present writ petitioner is above the three candidates i.e. appellant no.3, Rosy Kahkashan Chisti, appellant No.5, Manju Devi Kambam and appellant No.6, N.Diana Devi in the merit in the said wait list of candidates prepared for nomination for admission in the MBBS/BDS course for the Session 2003-2004. The Apex Court had disposed of the said Civil Appeals by passing the common judgment and order dated 27.10.2005, which reads as follows: “These appeals have been preferred by the State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Commissioner/Secretary (Health), Government of Manipur and the Director of Medical and Health Services, Government of Manipur. We are, prima facie, of the view that the State Government and the concerned officers have acted in violation of the orders of the Court particularly, the learned Single Judge's order dated 21.5.2004. No stay was granted on any of the orders of the High Court to the extent that the State Government had acted unconstitutionally in changing the prescribed limits for qualifying in the Common Entrance Test (CET) for the purpose of admission to the MBBS Course. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1999 (7) SCC 120 . Before us the State Government has submitted that their action was mistaken. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1999 (7) SCC 120 . Before us the State Government has submitted that their action was mistaken. However, despite the aforesaid facts the State Government had taken no steps either to accommodate the successful writ petitioners for the Academic Session 2004-2005 or 2005-2006 and nor did they take any steps to cancel their erroneous orders passed on the basis of the relaxation of the qualifying marks for selection. In the circumstances, issue notice to show cause by the aforesaid officers as to why under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 129 of the Constitution, proceedings should not be initiated against them. Notice is made returnable within a period of four weeks from today. Me.M.L.Verma learned senior counsel conceded that State Government made a mistake in making the amendment to the Rules, which was impugned in the High Court. In view of the fact that the basic issue has been conceded by the State Government the decision of the High Court is affirmed. C.A.No.5943/2005: The State Government has submitted before this Court that there were no seats available for the Academic Session 2005-2006. By our order dated 27.9.2005 we had directed the State Government to make available seats for the Academic Session 2006-2007 to Appellant No.2 Ningombam Tikendrajit Singh, Appellant No.3, Rosy Khkashan Chisti, Appellant No.5 Manju Devi Kambam, Appellant No.6 N.Diana Devi and Appellant No.7 Naorem Suresh Singh in the event there was no vacancy for the Academic Session 2005-2006. The State Government shall within a period of four weeks from date; (1) put on record the aforesaid fact, namely, that no seats are available for the Academic Session 2005-2006, (2) file an undertaking within the aforesaid period that the said appellants will be allocated seats for the Academic Session 2006-2007 within the sanctioned limit available to the State Government, (3) advertise only the balance seats available after adjusting the seats as far as the said appellants are concerned for the Academic Session 2006-2007 and (4) issue letters to the said appellants affirming the aforesaid fact within the aforesaid period. The order passed by this Court on 27.9.2005 effectively disposed of the writ appeals and the matter is adjourned only for the purpose of compliance with these directions by the State Government. The order passed by this Court on 27.9.2005 effectively disposed of the writ appeals and the matter is adjourned only for the purpose of compliance with these directions by the State Government. The civil appeal No.5946 of 2005 is disposed of.” [11] The Apex Court while passing the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 directing the State respondents to make available seats for the Academic Session 2006-2007 to the said six appellants/applicants, of whom three are admittedly below the present petitioner in the merit list for nomination of candidates against the seats reserved for the State Government no ratio decidendi had been laid down. [12] It is also admitted case of all concerned that the said Civil Appeals in which the Apex Court passed under the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 arose from the two writ petitioner, i.e. WP(C) No.1007 of 2003 and WP(C) No.1091 of 2003 filed by the general candidates and Scheduled Caste candidates respectively challenging the subsidiary list for nomination of candidates for admission in the said reserved seats in MBBS/BDS Course for the year, 2003-2004. The present writ petitioner filed the present writ petition for the reliefs, interalia, for a direction to the State respondents to allot one seat for admission to MBBS/BDS Course to the writ petitioner for the academic session 2006-2007 in the manner the State Government had reserved seats for the said four candidates/appellant nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 of whom appellant no.3, Rosy Kahkashan Chisti, appellant no.5, Manju Devi Kambam, appellant no.6, N.Diana Devi are admittedly below the writ petitioner in the merit list of the wait list of candidates recommended/nominated for admission in the Government reserved seats for the academic session 2003-2004 in pursuance of the said judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 27.10.2005 for the reasons that as the petitioner is above the said three appellant/applicant nos.3, 5 and 6 in the merit list one seat also should be reserved inasmuch as under Rule 17 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 nomination of candidates should be according to the merit list. [13] The State respondents filed their Affidavit-inopposition in the present writ petition stating that no ratio decidendi had been laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment and order dated 27.10.2005, the Apex Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in order to meet the ends of justice, had directed the State respondents to make available seats for the academic session 2006-2007 for the said six appellants after knowing quite well that the names of the said appellant nos.3, 5 and 6 are not even appeared in the said wait list of the candidates consisting of six candidates including the present petitioner and the said appellant no.7 Shri N.Suresh Singh inasmuch as the State Government had placed the mark sheets of all the candidates appeared in the said selection test held on 29.6.2003 before the Supreme Court and also that there is no provision in the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993 for extending the availability of the select list for the purpose of utilizing the same for the next academic session. [14] The learned counsel for the petitioner had heavily relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the following cases: (1) Ashwani Kumar Vs The State of Bihar: (1997) 2 SCC 1 (2) U.P.State Mineral Development Corpn Ltd & Anr Vs Vijay Kumar Upadhyay & anr: (1997) IX SCC 334 (3) K.Thinappa Vs Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI: (2001) 2 SCC 259 & (4) Dr.Pradeep Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors : (1984) 3 SCC 654 . [15] It is now fairly well settled that admission to medical colleges should be in order of merit and more meritorious persons cannot be denied for admission by admitting less meritorious persons. For this well settled principle of law it is not required to burden ourselves by referring to a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. This court is also of the considered view that admission of candidates in the MBBS/BDS Course should be strictly in order of the merit in which their appeared in the select list. The State Government should also nominate candidates according to the merit list in compliance with Rule 17 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993. This court is also of the considered view that admission of candidates in the MBBS/BDS Course should be strictly in order of the merit in which their appeared in the select list. The State Government should also nominate candidates according to the merit list in compliance with Rule 17 of the MBBS/BDS Rules, 1993. [16] The learned GA, Mr.R.S.Reisang, in order to bolster up the case of the State Government had put into service the following decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Delhi Dev.Authority Vs Skipper Construction Co (P) Ltd & Anr: (1996) 4 SCC 622 (2) Vinay Chanddra Mishra: IN RE - (1995) 2 SCC 584 . (3) Union Carbide Corpn Vs Union of India: (1991) 4 SCC 584 and (4) Indian Bank Vs ABS Marine Products Pvt Ltd: 2006(4) Scale 423 . [17] The learned GA by referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases had strenuously submitted that as the Apex Court by exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had directed the State respondents to make available seats for the said six appellants/applicants by passing judgment and order dated 27.10.2005, this court cannot grant relief sought for in the present writ petition by directing the State respondents to allot one seat for the MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2006-2007 to the writ petitioner in the manner Apex Court had allotted seats for the said six appellants/applicants by passing judgment and order dated 27.10.2005. From careful perusal of the judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 27.10.2005, it appears that no ratio decidendi had been laid down in passing the judgment and order for directing the State respondents to make the seats available for the six appellants/applicants in the MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2006-2007. From careful perusal of the judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 27.10.2005, it appears that no ratio decidendi had been laid down in passing the judgment and order for directing the State respondents to make the seats available for the six appellants/applicants in the MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2006-2007. This court is of the considered view that the Apex Court had passed judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 after knowing quite well that the names of the appellant nos.3, 5 and 6 are not even included in the list of wait list of the candidates consisting of six candidates which includes the present petitioner and said appellant no.7 in order of merit for nomination for admission in the MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2003-2004 inasmuch as in the last part of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 27.10.2005 in Civil Appeal No.5946/05 stated that “original answer sheets had been returned to the State Government”. The Apex Court in Indian Bank Vs ABS Marine Products Private Ltd: 2006 (4) SCALE 423 held that: “23. One word before parting. Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/orders is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Art.142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Art.142. Be that as it may. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Art.142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Art.142. Be that as it may. [18] This court is of the considered view that since the Apex Court passed judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and also no ratio decidendi had been laid down in the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005, this court cannot grant relief sought for in the present writ petition by extending the benefit granted by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 to the writ petitioner. The appropriate course for extending the benefit of the judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 27.10.2005 to the writ petition would be that the Writ Petitioner has to approach the Apex Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case for the ends of justice and also not to deny his admission in the MBBS/BDS Course in the academic session 2006-2007 by admitting less meritorious candidates i.e. appellant/applicant nos.3, 5 and 6 in the SLP No.16201/04 (C.A.No.5946/05 of the Apex Court). [19] For the reasons discussed above, writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and finding. The respondents are, further, directed not to fill up 1 (one) seat for the MBBS Course out of the Manipur State reserved seats for MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2006-2007 upto 16th September, 2006 in order to meet the eventuality of passing any order by the Apex Court on being approached by the present petitioner, as the 30th September, 2006 is the cut off date fixed by the Medical Council of India for completion of admission to the first MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2006-2007. Parties are to bear their own costs.