Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 776 (MP)

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-06-26

DIPAK MISRA, S.C.SINHO

body2008
Judgment DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1. ) Regard being had to the commonality of challenge in these writ petitions they were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the facts in W.P. No.6735/2008 and in view of that, the factual matrix of the said writ petition is frescoed. ( 2. ) The petitioner as an in-service candidate appeared in the Pre P.G. Entrance Examination for Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses, 2008 conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The result of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-P-3. It is contended that 20% seats are reserved for in-service category of students. The prospectus has mentioned 308 seats to be filled up out of which approximately 60 seats were mentioned as unrecognized seats which pertained to Degree courses and Diploma courses. Names of various colleges are mentioned in the prospectus showing the unrecognized Degree seats and unrecognized Diploma seats. It is putforth that there are certain seats which are neither in the recognized category nor in the unrecognized category. Though the said unrecognized seats were mentioned in the prospectus, a notification was issued on 23.5.2008 by the respondent No.2, the Director, Medical Education that the seats which are not recognized or which have been derecognized by the Medical Council of India would not be included in the counselling. It is pleaded that in respect of the unrecognized seats, the State Government has been allotting them to meritorious students so that they get the degree. It is putforth that the seats which are unrecognized by the Medical Council of India should have been included in the counselling so that the seats would not have gone waste. It is also averred that the counselling has been conducted without waiting for the reversion of All-India quota seats and the counselling could have been done on 5-6-2008. It is urged that by such non-inclusion of the unrecognized seats and the seats which have been reverted from the All-India quota, the petitioner has been deprived of the admission and has suffered at the hands of the respondents. It is urged that by such non-inclusion of the unrecognized seats and the seats which have been reverted from the All-India quota, the petitioner has been deprived of the admission and has suffered at the hands of the respondents. In this backdrop, a prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct fresh counselling in respect of the seats that have been reverted from All-India quota and unrecognized seats and further to command the respondents to allot unrecognized and derecognized seats of the Medical Council of India to the likes of the petitioner as the said practice has been in vogue for long. ( 3. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents No.1and2 contending, inter alia, that there are 300 seats for P.G. Course and out of the said 300 seats, 239 seats have been earmarked for non service candidates and 60 seats have been year marked for in-service candidates. In W.P.No.2943/2004 (Dr.Om Prakash Lakhwani Vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 13.5.2008, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent-State not to admit any student in future against any course which is not recognized by the Medical Council of India in a particular institution. The Rules, namely, M.P. Medical and Dentral P.G. Entrance Examination Rules, 2008 (for short the Rules) were published in the Gazette and in the said Rules, distribution of seats in different categories was shown in the Table appended thereto. It is putforth that in compliance of the said order of the learned Single Judge of the Gwalior Bench passed in the writ petition, the State Government excluded the unrecognized seats for the purpose of counselling and as the same has been done in compliance with the direction passed by the High Court,no fault can be found with the respondents. It is pleaded that in relation to the All- India quota seats the Apex Court in W.P. (Civil) No.157/2005 (Amit Gupta Vs. Union of India) has directed that the counselling shall be completed between 24th to 30th May, 2008 and thereafter the second round of the said counselling was extended for a period of ten days, i.e., 10.6.2008. The Director General of Health Services, Government of India completed the counselling by 30.5.2008 and seven days time had been granted for the All-India quota candidates for taking admission. The Director General of Health Services, Government of India completed the counselling by 30.5.2008 and seven days time had been granted for the All-India quota candidates for taking admission. The seats could only be available to the State Government by 07.6.2008 as is clear from the letter dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Director General of Health Services. In view of the aforesaid, the second round of counselling was scheduled to be held from 08.6.2008 to 10.6.2008 for the seats reverted from the All-India quota. The stand that in the All-India counselling unrecognized seats are being allotted has been seriously disputed. The stand that certain seats are not mentioned in the column of seats has also been disputed by stating that no specific pleading has been made. ( 4. ) We have heard Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mrs.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel alongwith Ms.Jasmeet Chana for the respondent No.3. ( 5. ) Mr.Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- (a) The action of the respondents in not including the unrecognized seats in the counselling is totally improper as the same has been in practice for many a year. It is urged by him that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2943/2004 has been dislodged in W.A.No.299/2008 and, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to fill up the unrecognized seats or the derecognized seats in all the Colleges by second round of counselling. (b) The respondents No.l and 2 have fallen into grave error by holding the counselling of All-India quota seats that have been reverted on 08.6.2008 as a consequence of which the likes of the petitioners have been deprived of admission to the course. The said counselling could have been held much earlier as a consequence of which the petitioner would have been in a position to participate in the counselling. (c) The prospectus and the list of recognized and unrecognized students do not show either of the two categories in respect of certain seats as a consequence of which the petitioner could not get admission. ( 6. ) Mr. (c) The prospectus and the list of recognized and unrecognized students do not show either of the two categories in respect of certain seats as a consequence of which the petitioner could not get admission. ( 6. ) Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, resisting the aforesaid submission of Mr.Sanghi, canvassed that the State and its functionaries were bound by the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly they did not include the unrecognized seats in the counselling and, therefore, no fault can be found with it. It is proponed by him that the seats in the All-India quota were only to be reverted on 07.6.2008, therefore, the State Government could not have conducted the counselling before the said date. Heavy reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Amit Gupta (supra). It is argued by Mr.Awasthy that in view of the order passed in the writ appeal, the State shall take appropriate steps and, therefore, spacious plea that the State has not taken effective steps is sans substratum. It is propounded by the learned Government Advocate that the submission that some seats have been shown as unrecognized at one place and as recognized at some other place is not clear and is, in fact, a figment of imagination of the petitioner and hence, liable to be rejected. ( 7. ) Mrs.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel alongwith Ms.Jasmeet Chana appearing for the Medical Council of India, submitted that the State Government cannot fill up the unrecognized seats without the infrastructure, staff faculty and prior permission of the Medical Council of India. It is contended by her that the order passed in the writ appeal deserves to be reconsidered by a larger bench and if this Court is not inclined to refer to the larger bench, then the same has to be read in the context in which it has been delivered and it has to be construed to mean that it relates to G.R.Medical College and the seats unrecognized in the said College, but not the unrecognized seats in all other colleges. It is propounded by her that the State Government is bound by the Medical Council of India Act and the Regulations framed by it and hence, the unrecognized seats cannot be filled up as that would mar the career of the meritorious students who may eventually get a degree from the University without proper imparting of objective and specific training. ( 8. ) To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, it is proper to refer to paragraph 20 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2943/ 2004 which reads as under:- "20. It is not disputed that there are number of courses which are not recognized by the Medical Council of India. Students are admitted to such courses as per the allotment made by the Director of Medical Education in spite of the fact that the Director of Medical Education is fully aware of the fact that said courses are not recognized by the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India and the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council are also watching this illegality for number of years as silent spectators and thus all these Authorities are playing with the career of the students which cannot be permitted to be done. If the Medical Council of India and Madhya Pradesh Medical Council permitted to watch the game as silent spectators and continue the illegality in admissions, then the very purpose of establishing these Authorities will be frustrated. In such a situation, it is for the aforesaid Authorities to see that in future, no candidate is allotted seat in post graduate degree course in the Institutions which are not recognized. Therefore, they are directed not to admit any student in future any course which is not recognized by the Medical Council of India in a particular Institution." ( 9. ) Against the aforesaid order, Writ Appeal No.299/2008 was preferred. The Division Bench noted the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Before the Division Bench, a statement was made by the Medical Council of India that the request for recognition could not be considered for want of meeting of the Medical Council of India and further the College, namely, G.R.Medical College, Gwalior had not fulfilled the requirement and had not appointed adequate teaching staff as required by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the Division Bench directed as follows:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have observed that because of non grant of recognition by M.C.I., this year, students could not be admitted in the PG degree course as well as in diploma course which is a great loss to the public. We have observed that up till now the M.C.I. has not regularized the provisional recognition granted way back in the year 1978. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the M.C.I. to consider the case of G.R.Medical College, Gwalior for grant of recognition. When favourable report is available on record, the M.C.I. can grant recognition to the college for this court to admit two Post Graduate candidates and three diploma candidates. It is directed that the M.C.I. for this course as well as for all other courses and also for grant of recognition to college will take decision positively within a period of thirty days from today. After recognition is granted to the college, the State shall have liberty to give admission in the courses. It is made clear that thereafter within further thirty days period, the seats shall be filled by the State through counselling. The Govt. shall ensure that no seat shall go in waste in any year in any particular faculty. It is further directed that in future, the M.C.I. shall decide the applications of all govt. colleges for recognition well in time positively within a period of three months and if it is found that there are deficiencies in the Govt. colleges, the direction shall be issued to rectify the deficiencies within the allotted period. It is further directed that the State shall make all efforts to rectify the deficiencies within the allotted time without fail, so that there may not be any delay in granting recognition or permissions. The State Government shall also be free to fix responsibility of the officer concerned for not complying the norms or removing the deficiencies timely. It is further directed that the State shall make all efforts to rectify the deficiencies within the allotted time without fail, so that there may not be any delay in granting recognition or permissions. The State Government shall also be free to fix responsibility of the officer concerned for not complying the norms or removing the deficiencies timely. If the medical colleges are not upgraded as per requirement of M.C.I. the Government shall be responsible for not upgrading colleges as well as for the loss caused by not appointing the adequate staff and for not providing necessary infrastructure as required by the M.C.I. and shall also be responsible for the loss of education to the students and for not providing medical facilities to the public at large. The question of education and health is part of life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India under the concept of welfare state. Therefore, it is the duty of the govt. to provide adequate facilities for health and education to the citizens". ( 10. ) At this juncture, it is worth noting that this Court on 23.6.2008 taking note of Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council of India Act, 1956 had passed the following order:- "Though many a grievance has been agitated in these writ petitions, the primary and principal issue which requires to be addressed in quite promptitude, as the same cannot be brook any delay, is whether the State Government can fill up unrecognized seats. We may note with profit that a minor cavil was raised by Mr.Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the State that the seats which have been shown as unrecognized in the prospectus and that have been shown in the Gazette Notification there is some kind of anomaly. The said issue need not be dwelled upon in praesenti. Mrs. The said issue need not be dwelled upon in praesenti. Mrs. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India after referring to Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council of India Act, 1956 (for short the Act) submitted with all fairness that if the State Government undertakes to fulfill the deficiencies and complete the infrastructural base and staff position, within a span of one year, the unrecognized seats can be filled up and the MCI shall be in a position to include the said courses which have not been conferred the status of recognized courses in the First Schedule to the Act. Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, stated that the State Government would fulfill the deficiencies within that span but the M.C.I. should grant permission to fill up the seats so that the seats do not go waste and students do not suffer. At this stage, it is submitted at the Bar that initial course of P.G. Course is of general nature and, therefore, grant of one year would not really affect the imparting of education. Mrs. Nair shall obtain instructions, specifically and exclusively to this aspect by tomorrow. The writ petitions shall be heard at 4.00 p.m. tomorrow, i.e., 24.6.2008. Let a free copy of the order be handed over to Miss Jasmeet Chana, learned counsel, who is assisting Mrs.Indira Nair by the Registrar (Judicial) in course of the day." ( 11. ) In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mrs.Indira Nair, learned senior counsel, has obtained instructions wherein the Medical Council of India had referred to its earlier communication to the counsel which is as follows:-"That the admissions to medicine courses is the primary responsibility of the competent admitting authorities which is in accordance with the directions of the Honble Supreme Court issued from time to time. The MCI is required to ensure that the admissions in all the medical courses by the competent admitting authorities are made only in the medicine courses recognized/permitted by MCI and within the annual intake capacity sanctioned for each medical college and are within the time schedule prescribed under the Regulations. MCI is required to ensure that no admissions are made in any unrecognized course thereby ensuring that no prejudice/hardship is caused to the meritorious students. MCI is required to ensure that no admissions are made in any unrecognized course thereby ensuring that no prejudice/hardship is caused to the meritorious students. It is further submitted that each medical college is obliged to provide the minimum required infrastructural, teaching and other physical facilities for running each of the medicine course in terms of the MCIs regulations. If deficiencies have been pointed out to the college authorities by the MCI, the college is obliged to furnish compliance with the deficiencies pointed out to it and report compliance with the deficiencies after rectification of the same." ( 12. ) A decision of the Bombay High Court in P.I.L. No.41 of 2008 has also been referred to in the said communication. It is highlighted that training in the specialized branch of medicine starts from the 1st year itself. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that no admission can be granted unless recognition is granted by MCI, as by such an act no prejudice is caused to the meritorious students. The said letter has been taken on record on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. ( 13. ) In this context, we may refer with profit to Section 10A of the 1956 Act, which deals with the permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study. It stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force no medical college shall open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Procedure has been provided in various sub-sections. Section 10B deals with non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases. The said provision postulates that where any medical college is established except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall be recognized as medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. ( 14. ) Section 11 of the Act deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions of India. ( 14. ) Section 11 of the Act deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions of India. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides that any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted after a specified date. ( 15. ) We have referred to the said provisions only to highlight that fundamentally there is no concept of non-recognized seats. The High Court of Bombay in P.I.L. No.41/2006 took note of the fact that the State Government had already initiated the process of getting recognition from the M.C.I. and the procedure prescribed for making an application through the University to the Central Government had been followed. Hence, it is directed that the Central Government would take the necessary steps. Before the Bombay High Court, an affidavit was filed by the Joint Director of Health showing recognized and unrecognized courses and availability of seats. The bench took note of the fact that 113 seats of degree courses are not recognized by the MCI and 81 seats for diploma courses are not recognized and thereby 194 seats in all have been shown as not recognized by the Medical Council of India. Be it noted, an interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay in P.I.L. No.41/2006 on 28.5.2008 has been brought on record. In the said case, the State Government has filed affidavits and had clarified the position that inspection team has already completed 23 courses and with regard to 12 courses the inspection team is under way. Accepting the said statements the Bench directed as under:- "5. In the said case, the State Government has filed affidavits and had clarified the position that inspection team has already completed 23 courses and with regard to 12 courses the inspection team is under way. Accepting the said statements the Bench directed as under:- "5. The anxiety of petitioners and the students as far as current academic year is concerned, has been dealt with in para 7 of this affidavit and it is stated that the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Government of Maharashtra has issued directions so also draft of proposed circular wherein the Government of Maharashtra has decided to admit students to the P.G. Course to which admission process has been initiated. We are informed by Mr.Naik on instructions from the concerned officers that 194 seats which are not recognized by MCI and, therefore, could not form part of the first phase of the admission process would now be included in the admission process and the admission thereto would be made in accordance with the rules framed in that behalf. 6. Such a circular would be issued for information of all concerned and the deadline which has been prescribed in the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mrudal Dhar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2005 SC 666 will be adhered to and the seats which are now referred to in this affidavit would form part of the admission process which would be completed by 31 st May 2008. It is made clear that 31st May 2008 is taken as a date on the basis of the arguments canvassed before us and if any extension is given insofar as cut off date is concerned, then, needless to state that the same shall be applicable. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. Needless to further add that the above statements which are recorded and the affidavits so also the position emerging therefrom would be subject to such other and further directions and orders as may be issued by the regular court. Mr.Naik states that the concerned authorities will issue appropriate clarifications so that the students are aware that some of the seats to which they have applied for admission are not recognized as yet by the MCI." ( 16. Mr.Naik states that the concerned authorities will issue appropriate clarifications so that the students are aware that some of the seats to which they have applied for admission are not recognized as yet by the MCI." ( 16. ) It is worth noting that in respect of G.R.Medical College, Gwalior it is reflected from the communication which has been taken on record it has been stated as follows:- "......It is further submitted that the inspection has been conducted by the Council inspectors in April 2008 and the inspection report has been placed before the PG Committee for consideration and its meeting held on 12.6.2008 (now adjourned to 2nd July 2008). The decision of the PG Committee upon approval by Chairman will be communicated immediately thereafter to the concerned authorities." ( 17. ) In this context, we may refer with profit to a two-Judge Bench decision rendered in Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 2423 wherein it has been held that it is the Medical Council/Dental Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted to Medical courses/Dental courses in a medical college or institution. The Universities and the State Government have no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges. The Medical Council is the principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college. Their Lordships in the said case have laid emphasis on Sections 10A, 10B and 10C of the M.C.I. Act. ( 18. ) In the case of Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 2899,the Constitution Bench had also given primacy to the Medical Council of India. In the case at hand, as is unmistakably clear, the seats are unrecognized. The order passed in the writ appeal, as we understand, would only apply to the G.R.Medical College, Gwalior. It cannot apply to all the colleges. ( 19. ) There is nothing on record that the State Government has taken steps for asking for recognition of courses by providing infrastructural staff and other facilities. Thus, the decision by the Bombay High Court is distinguishable, the factual matrix being quite different. ( 20. It cannot apply to all the colleges. ( 19. ) There is nothing on record that the State Government has taken steps for asking for recognition of courses by providing infrastructural staff and other facilities. Thus, the decision by the Bombay High Court is distinguishable, the factual matrix being quite different. ( 20. ) In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the direction of filling of unrecognized seats at this juncture in respect of other colleges does not arise. ( 21. ) The second aspect that requires to be considered is whether counselling of All-India Quota should have been held on 8-6-08 or should have been deferred. Submission of Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that it should have been held on 5-6-08 so that students could have participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after all the seats were made available then only a counselling could have been held. ( 22. ) Controverting the aforesaid submission it is put forth by Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, and Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, that in the present year there were certain directions by this Court and further the Apex Court in the case of Amit Gupta and others (supra) had extended the time and permitted second round of counselling. To appreciate the said aspect, it is seemly to reproduce the order passed by their Lordships in the case of Amit Gupta and Ors. (supra). The said order reads as under: "As per the schedule approved for conducting the counselling for admission to the post-graduate Medical/Dental courses for the All India Quota as well as State Quota, we had fixed the 15th April as the last date for first round of counselling for the State Quota. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Jharkhand the first round of counselling for admission to the State Quota was not completed by 15-04-2008 and that the details are not available. Consequently DGHS is facing difficulty in completing the second round of counselling for All India Quota, for which the last date is 9th May. Consequently DGHS is facing difficulty in completing the second round of counselling for All India Quota, for which the last date is 9th May. It is stated that unless the first round of counselling of State Quota is completed, it is not possible to complete the second round of counselling for re-allocation of seats and allotment of seats from waiting list. In the above circumstances, we direct the Director of Medical Education/Chief Secretary/Director of Entrance Examination in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Jharkhand to send the particulars of the first round of counselling for admission to State Quota to the DGHS, Government of India, before 10th May, 2008. The admissions to All India Quota DGHS in respect of the remainder of the second round of counselling is permitted to be held between 24th May to 30th May, 2008. Correspondingly, the second round of State counselling would stand extended for a period of ten days and they may complete the second round of counselling and admission by 10th June, 2008. All students who are eligible to participate in the second round of counselling may be given an opportunity to participate in the extended period of second round of counselling. Henceforth, Director of Health Services of the respective States shall ensure that the time schedule fixed by this Court for State Quota is followed strictly and first round of counselling shall be completed within the time frame fixed and the the details be furnished as fixed." ( 23. ) Mr. Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate, has also referred us to the communication dated 22-5-08 issued by the Assistant Director General (ME) of Directorate General of Health Services (Medical Examination Cell). It is essential to reproduce the said letter in toto: "As you are aware that the Extended 2nd round of Counselling for allotment of Post Graduate (Medical/Dental) seats under 50% All India Quota- 2008 is being held from 24th May to 30th May, 2008 in compliance to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2008 passed in T.A. No.17 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 157/2005 (Dr. Amit Gupta and Ors vs. UOI and anr.). The Honble Court had also extended the last date of 2nd round of State Counselling by 10 days and to complete both the State Counselling and admissions by 10th June, 2008. Amit Gupta and Ors vs. UOI and anr.). The Honble Court had also extended the last date of 2nd round of State Counselling by 10 days and to complete both the State Counselling and admissions by 10th June, 2008. In this connection this Directorates letter of even number dated 2nd May, 2008 and 8th May, 2008 refers. 2. The All India Quota candidates who will be re-allotted seats during this Extended 2nd round of Counselling are being given 7 days time to join the respective colleges/Institutes from the date of issue of allotment letter. Thereafter, the seats remaining vacant on account of non-joining/non-allotment may please be treated as deemed surrendered back to State Quota. 3. You are, therefore, requested to schedule the 2nd round of State P.G. Counselling so that the admissions are complete by 10th June, 2008 as per the aforesaid directions of the Honble Supreme Court." ( 24. ) On a perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is clear as day that the seats could only be treated as surrendered back to State quota after expiry of seven days time granted to the candidates to join in the respective allotted colleges/institutes. In view of the aforesaid, holding of counselling from 8-6-08 to 10-6-08 cannot be found fault with. ( 25. ) The aforesaid situation can be looked from another angle. The petitioner has made a claim that the future of candidates who could have got better subjects has been marred because of holding of counselling at a later stage and in respect of All- India Quota seats and holding of Counselling of State seats earlier. In this context, we may profitably refer to Rule 20(15) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008 which provides that if any candidate who does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects/courses available at the time of his/her counselling, he/she may give "opt for waiting" option in writing and his/her name will be placed in the waiting list in the order of merit. If any seat falls vacant on or before 31st May, 2008 in any Medical/Dental Colleges in any subject, the name of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit at the time of allotment of vacancies arising due to any reason for admission of the said category. None of the petitioners had availed "opt for waiting". If any seat falls vacant on or before 31st May, 2008 in any Medical/Dental Colleges in any subject, the name of such candidate shall be considered on the basis of merit at the time of allotment of vacancies arising due to any reason for admission of the said category. None of the petitioners had availed "opt for waiting". Hence, there cannot be any grievance. ( 26. ) Judged from both the angles, the aforesaid contention is without any substance. ( 27. ) The last plank of submission of Mr. Sanghi is that there had been misplacement of recognized and un-recognized seats in the prospectus and in the Gazette Notification and an anomaly has been caused because of the said misplacement. What is submitted by Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that some seats have been shown un-recognized in the Gazette and when some other seats have been shown in the same category in the prospectus and thereby an anomaly has crept in. Be that as it may, the same really does not have any impact on the adjudication of the present lis, as the relief prayed for is really not dependent upon the same. Hence, we do not intend to address ourselves to the said issue. ( 28. ) Before we part with the case, we may take note of another submission of Mr. Sanghi that it is obligatory and incumbent on the part of the State to enter into correspondence with the Medical Council of India to fill up the seats by providing adequate infrastructure, staff and faculty members. It is the duty of the State to see that the seats do not go waste. It is imperative on the part of the State especially in a State like Madhya Pradesh that more doctors come up and the people avail treatment easily. ( 29. ) It needs no special emphasis to state that the State has to rise to the occasion and enter into correspondence with the Medical Council of India much ahead of time so that appropriate steps are taken for getting the seats recognized. Health being the primary concern of the homo-sapiens and an insegregable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be marginalised or kept at bay by the State Government. Waking up at the last moment creates enormous difficulty for all concerned. Health being the primary concern of the homo-sapiens and an insegregable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be marginalised or kept at bay by the State Government. Waking up at the last moment creates enormous difficulty for all concerned. It is really inscrutable how the State Government could advertise the unrecognized seats. The State would have been well advised to fulfill the requirements as mandated under the 1956 Act and the Regulations framed therein and proceeded thereafter. The State cannot play possum and leave everything to chance. Hide and seek may be an interesting game for children but is a condemnable idea in the field of medical education. We hope and trust that action in quite promptitude shall be taken in future so that seats are recognized and there is no grievance by the students as well as suffering people that they do not have adequate number of doctors and all be done regard being had to principles of transparency. We say so, as a Division Bench in Arun Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR (2007) 178 has stated thus: "We would like to observe that henceforth the authorities, who conduct counselling, should follow a transparent procedure in which candidates seeking admission to MBBS/BDS courses have trust and confidence. The procedure should be such that they should not feel that although better seats were available at the time of their counselling, information with regard to such seats was withheld from them and as a consequence, they were misled to take admission in less attractive seats and the better seats were offered to show favour to candidates of their choice. What exactly should be the transparent and fair procedure to be adopted is for the counselling authorities to work out. This new transparent and fair procedure should be devised and adopted in the next counselling." (quoted from placitum). ( 30. ) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.