JUDGMENT 1. - Imran Khan the present respondent submitted an application form for appearing in the examination of Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test, 2006 (for short, 'RPMT, 2006'). He passed the written examination by securing 637 marks out of 900. According to him, he is a disabled person having permanent disability to the extent of 60%. He submitted permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of P.B. M. Medical College, Bikaner. Fie also claims to be belonging to Other Backward Class and, thus, he claimed admission in the category of OBC (physically handicapped) quota. It is his case that he was called to appear before the medical board constituted for that purpose on 13.7.2006 which he did. The said medical board opined that his physical disability was to the extent of 25% and, thus, less than 50%. He was not allowed in the counselling accordingly. 2. The present respondent filed a writ petition and prayed for direction to the present appellants (respondents therein) to admit him in the first year MBBS course according to his merit position in the category of OBC (physically handicapped). He also prayed that term No. 2 contained in the information booklet of RPMT. 2006 be declared unconstitutional, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The writ petition was opposed by the present appellants as diverse grounds. It was submitted that the Convener of Central U.G. Admission Board, constituted a medical board for examination of the handicapped candidates and the examination by that board revealed that the extent of his disability did not make him eligible for admission in MBBS course in that category. it was also submitted in the reply that as per the Medical Council of India guidelines, only persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% were to be given the benefit of reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'Disability Act, 1995') for admission in the medical courses. The disability suffered by the petitioner was not covered under the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. 4. The disability suffered by the petitioner was not covered under the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. 4. The Single Judge by a very brief and cryptic order dated 23rd July 2007 without taking into consideration the diverse contentions raised in the reply allowed the writ petition, directed the respondents therein (Appellants herein) to consider the case of the petitioner under the category of OBC (physically handicapped) in view of the recommendation made by the Medical Board of SMS Medical College and Hospital and if the petitioner was otherwise found eligible, to give him admission. 5. It is this order of the Single Judge which is challenged by the appellant in the appeal. 6. It is true that the petitioner produced the certificate which recorded his permanent disability exceeding 60% but the condition with regard to disability reservation provided that only persons with locomotor disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% should be allowed the benefit of reservation under the Disability Act for admission in all medicine courses for reserved seats. For verification that a candidate fulfills the eligibility in this category, the Convener, Central UG Admission Board constituted a medical board for examination of Such handicapped candidates. The petitioner was asked to appear before the medical board on 13th July, 2006 at Ajmer which infact he did without any demur or whisper. In the medical examination by the medical board constituted by the Convener of Central UG Admission Board, the disability of the petitioner was found only to the extent of 25%. Since he did not fulfil the eligibility, he was not permitted to appear for counselling. Although during the pendency of the writ petition, the Single Judge permitted the medical examination of the petitioner by the medical board at SMS Medical College and Hospital and in that medical examination his physical disability was found to the extent of 50%, the question that falls for our determination is: is the petitioner entitled for admission in first year MBBS Medical Course, as has been ordered by the Single Judge in the year 2007 against PRMT, 2006 in a reserved category (OBC-physically handicapped) based on the certificate of disability filed by him alongwith the application form and the certificate given by the Medical Board, SMS Medical College and Hospital ? 7. 7. In the case of the Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Others 2002 (7) SCC 258 : [2002(6) SLR 180 (SC)] , the Supreme Court disapproved mid-session admission in the medical colleges. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report, the Supreme Court held thus : "22. It is to be noted that it any student is admitted after commencement of the course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time scheduled. In fact, as the factual position goes to show the inevitable result in increase in the number of seats for the next session to accommmodate the students who are admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session. Though, it was pleaded by learned counsel for Respondent I that with the object of preventing loss to the national exchequer such admissions should be permitted, we are of the view that the same cannot be a ground to permit midstream admissions which would be against the spirit of governing statutes. His suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. The time schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling the requisite number of days would be harmful to the students physical and mental capacity to study. In fact such a suggestion was held to be grossly in appropriate in Dr. Dinesh Kumar case. In Para 15, it was observed as under (SCC p. 130). "15. The next question is as to when should the examination be held. Learned counsel for the Union of India as also the Indian Medical Council suggested that it could be done in October this year so that the candidate selected at the entrance examination could join the 1987-88 session from November. In most of the colleges, admission in respect of 85 percent seats has been completed and actual teaching has either begun or is about to begin. By November a substantial part of the course would have been read. To meet the situation, learned counsel for the Union of India suggested that we should direct the colleges and institutions to have a supplementary course for the students admitted against the 15 percent vacancies. By November a substantial part of the course would have been read. To meet the situation, learned counsel for the Union of India suggested that we should direct the colleges and institutions to have a supplementary course for the students admitted against the 15 percent vacancies. In the absence of consent from the institutions, it would be difficult to work out that. As it is, there exists a lot of confusion in the field and we do not propose to add to it by giving a direction of the type proposed. On the other hand it would be appropriate to bring the scheme into operation from the coming year so that all the preliminaries can be properly conducted and in regular course the students can seek admission to the 1988-89 session. we accordingly direct the authorities to hold the examination in the manner directed, in June (sic May) 1988. The Union of India, the Medical Council, the Dental Council, the several States. Universities and Medical Colleges or institutions who are covered by the scheme are directed to comply with these orders in time so as to give full effect to what has been said here." 23. "There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. In conclusion : (i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; (ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid session admissions; (iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year; (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and last date for admission; (v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counselling and the like have to be completed within the specified time; (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed. (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI." 8. (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI." 8. While holding that mid-session admissions in the medical colleges cannot be permitted, the Supreme Court also directed the Medical Council of India to ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of the course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission. It was also directed that while holding modalities for admission, steps like holding of examination, counselling etc. must be taken to ensure that the entire exercise is completed within the specified time. In unmistakable terms, the Supreme Court emphasised that no variation of the schedule in respect of admission shall be allowed. 9. Consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh's case, the Medical Council of India acted and framed the time schedule for completion of the admission process for the medical and dental courses. According to this schedule, the conduct of examination for first year MBBS course has to commence in the month of May, 30th September has been fixed as the last date upto which the students can be admitted against the vacancies arising due to any reason. 10. The statement of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Singh came to be reiterated by the three judgment bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar v. Union of India and Other, 2005 (2) SCC 65 : [ 2005(2) SLR 18 (SC). The Supreme Court also held that the time scheme fixed by the Medical Council of India for admission of MBBS/BDS courses has to be strictly adhered to by all parties concerned. 11. In the light of the aforesaid legal position exposited by the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh and Mridul Dhar and also the time schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India which is part of Regulations, 1999 and has a statutory force, if the direction of the Single Judge is allowed to stand, it would amount to tampering with the schedule of admission having statutory force which, in our view, cannot be permitted. 12. Mr. Bharat Vyas, the Additional Advocate General informed us that all the seats in the medical courses pursuant to RPMT- 2006 have been filed. Mr. 12. Mr. Bharat Vyas, the Additional Advocate General informed us that all the seats in the medical courses pursuant to RPMT- 2006 have been filed. Mr. R.C. Joshi, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no affidavit to that effect by the appellants. We have no justifiable reason to disbelieve the statement of Mr. Bharat Vyas. The effect of the order of Single Judge, in the circumstances, shall be increase in the intake capacity of medical college which is not permitted by the Medical Council of India. In our view, this cannot be done. 13. Recently in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rimjhim Shrimal & Others (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 128/2006) , we held thus : "...no direction could have been issued by the Single Judge for creation of a new seat SMS Medical College, Jaipur. The Court passes an order of issues a direction for compliance of law and the statutory provisions. It never passes an order directing the authority to act in contravention of law. 14. We went on to observe further with reference to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 thus : "Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by over- riding all others provisions of the contrary, provides that no medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the section 'Admission capacity' has been explained to mean, in relation to any course of study in a medical college the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Medical Council of India from time to time for being admitted in such course or training. It is, thus, not open for the S.M.S. Medical College to increase its admission capacity in the Medical Council Act, 1956. The Central Government has not accorded any permission to S.M.S. Medical College to increase its admission capacity nor the procedure prescribed for increase of its admission capacity has been followed. The direction by the Single Judge to the S.M.S. Medical College to create one more seat to accommodate the petitioner cannot be legally sustained being contrary and inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956." 15. Mr. The direction by the Single Judge to the S.M.S. Medical College to create one more seat to accommodate the petitioner cannot be legally sustained being contrary and inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956." 15. Mr. R.C. Joshi, the counsel for the respondent (original writ petitioner), however, placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Others, AIR, 1979 SC 765 and submitted that if the schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India was strictly followed then even where the Court in a given fact situation is compelled to issue direction for admission where gross illegality is found in denial of admission, then in that case also the aggrieved and affected candidate would not be able to get justice. 16. Paragraph 41 of the report, upon which the reliance has been placed by Mr. R.C. Joshi reads thus : "41. We direct the State Government to admit 30 more willing students who are qualified under the rules and who are students from the college affiliated to the Calicut University in order of the marks secured. They will be distributed by the Selection Committee among the four medical colleges of Government in an equitable way and their decision will be final. The Kerala and the Calicut Universities will be bound to expand the strength of the medial colleges concerned for this year in obedience to this direction of the Court and the respective bodies under the Universities will act accordingly." 17. While referring para 41, the counsel for the respondent overlooked the fact that in the case of T.P. Roshana. While granting accommodation for more students in medical colleges, Medical Council of India and the concerned Universities were given notice and the Medical Council of India expressed its no objection to the proposal for mid-session admissions for the concerned year. In the present case admittedly the Medical Council of India has not been impleaded as a party-respondent. They are not before us. We are deprived of the view of the Medical Council of India. 18. In the present case admittedly the Medical Council of India has not been impleaded as a party-respondent. They are not before us. We are deprived of the view of the Medical Council of India. 18. Moreover, it is important to notice that the petitioner (respondent) has not put in issue the legality and constitutionality of condition that only persons with locornotor disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% should be allowed the benefit of reservation under the disability act for admission in the medicine course. The medical board that was constituted by the respondent No. 2 for verification of the disability was of the opinion that the disability suffered by the petitioner did not exceed 25%. The difference of opinion amongst different medical boards does not improve the case of the petitioner because at this distance of time, the petitioner who appeared in RPMT, 2006 could not have been given admission in the year 2007 (as has been ordered by the Single Judge by his order dated 23rd July, 2007). 19. We are unable to countenance the view of the Single Judge and we set- aside, as we must, the order dated 23rd July, 2007. 20. The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******