Judgment : Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru 1. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad (for short "NIMS") has called in question the interim direction dated 23rd of November 2010, passed in Writ Petition No.29109 of 2010, requiring it to permit the respondent Doctors to attend classes of the Postgraduate/Super Speciality Courses on the basis of provisional admission given to them by NIMS, based on a common judgment dated 30.9.2010, handed down in clubbed Writ Petitions 13224, 21877, 21916, 22092, 22093 and 22094 of 2010. At the very outset it needs to be noticed, that NIMS is not averse to the implementation of the judgment which fact is evidenced by communication of NIMS dated 01.11.2010, wherein it had requested the Medical Council of India ("MCI" hereinafter), to permit it to admit petitioners six in number to the Super Specialty Course but was declined vide its communication dated 2.11.2010, on the strength of the Regulation which has received approval of the apex Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, ( AIR 2005 SC 666 ) preventing a medical institute to admit a student to the Postgraduate Super Specialty Course beyond 30th September. Being aggrieved of the communication of the MCI aforementioned, the writ petitioners (respondents herein), filed Writ Petition No. 29109 of 2010, which upon consideration on 23-11-2010, begot a direction favouring the writ petitioners-respondents, requiring the NIMS, to permit them to attend classes for the present academic session of Super Specialty Courses and the direction has to be operative until disposal of the writ petition. The direction being in contravention of the Regulation of the MCI and judgment of the Supreme Court, preventing a medical institute from granting admission to a candidate in Postgraduate Super Specialty Course beyond 30th September, hence, this appeal which gives rise to a short, but an important question of law, summarized hereunder: "Whether the writ court can compel a medical institute to admit a candidate to a Super Speciality Course beyond 30th September"? 2. For answering the above said question, it is necessary to extract a few relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the apex Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India: "31. 2. For answering the above said question, it is necessary to extract a few relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the apex Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India: "31. The time schedule for post-graduate and super speciality course admissions may also be noted as under : TIME SCHEDULE FOR POSTGRADUATE AND SUPER SPECIALITY COURSES ADMISSIONS Postgraduate Super Speciality Courses Courses x x x x x x x 31st May 30th September Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason 32. Having regard to the professional courses into consideration, it deserves to be emphasized that all concerned including Governments, State and Central both, MCI/DCI, colleges, new or old, students, Boards, universities, examining authorities etc. are required to strictly adhere to time schedule wherever provided for............................................................. 35. Having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the following directions: 4. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territories and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance of the directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and noncompliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequence. 12. The time schedule for grant of admission to postgraduate courses shall also be adhered to. 15. Time schedule provided in Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with." 3. A plain reading of the judgment reveals that 30th September is the last date up to which a candidate could be admitted to the Super Speciality Course and the judgment commands the Central Government, the State Governments and their functionaries, to adhere strictly to the time schedule and a speaking direction is given to the Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territory and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance with the directions of the Court without fail, forewarning the defaulters by penal consequences, leaving no scope for admission to a medical institute after 30th September. 4. We would also like to look beyond the judgment with reference to Article 141 of the Constitution which reads: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." 5. 4. We would also like to look beyond the judgment with reference to Article 141 of the Constitution which reads: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." 5. The expression employed in Article 141 of the Constitution, mandates clearly and unambiguously that the law declared by the Supreme Court, is binding on all Courts within the territory of India, therefore, a High Court has no power to pass a direction contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, even if a Bench comprising of full strength of a High Court, wishes so in one voice on its judicial side. Thus High Court cannot compel a Medical Institute to entertain candidature of a candidate to a Super Speciality Course beyond the cut off date namely 30th September and that is our answer to the question of law formulated by us. 6. Dealing faithfully with the contentions urged before us, reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera ( (2010) 1 SCC 173 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioners / respondents, becomes imperative. For facility of reference, it is reproduced hereunder: "1. Leave granted. The Medical Council of India has challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa directing the admission of twelve students after the cut-off date of 30th September of the year concerned. 2. It may be noticed in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India this Court directed that all the parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as regards admission of students in the medical and dental colleges. In Direction 15 of para 35 of the judgment, we had also indicated, "Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with." In view of these directions, the High Court should not have passed the impugned order. 3. However, we have noticed that these twelve students were eligible and because of unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time- limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them as a one-time measure. However, we clarify that the time schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly. 4. 3. However, we have noticed that these twelve students were eligible and because of unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time- limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them as a one-time measure. However, we clarify that the time schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly. 4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly." (emphasis supplied by us) 7. The judgment is pressed into service to persuade us to maintain the judgment of the writ court. No doubt, the Supreme Court has passed a direction in the judgment supra favouring the writ petitioners, a power available to it which High Court cannot assume unto itself. Yes, it can help the writ petitioners if it is an unrestricted precedent but is it so. The answer is a "big NO". We say so because a conjoint reading of the judgment shows, that the Supreme Court did not approve of the direction passed by the High Court, granting admission to the students after the cut-off date. Not only that. The judgment reminds the High Court of its obligation, to follow the time schedule strictly which amounts to reiteration of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, prohibiting admission of a student after 30th September, obviously, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera is misplaced. 8. Situated thus, the only permissible course of action available to this Court is to set aside the judgment of the writ court dated 23.11.2010, questioned by medium of writ appeal on hand. We do so accordingly. Writ appeal shall stand allowed. Writ Petition No.29109 of 2010 1. We have taken up the writ petition also for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. We do so accordingly. Writ appeal shall stand allowed. Writ Petition No.29109 of 2010 1. We have taken up the writ petition also for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Proceeding in that direction, it needs to be noticed, that the litigation between the parties, in essence owes its origin to the reservation of the seats earmarked for in-service doctors by NIMS which had become subject matter of Writ Petition No.13224 of 2010 and batch, disposed of by judgment dated 30.09.2010, operative portion whereof reads: "42........the impugned notification, dated 10.05.2010, issued by the 1st respondent-Institute in Rc.No.74/EC/SS/2010, to the extent of earmarking seats for in-service candidates in the courses which are subject matter of these writ petitions, and admission of unofficial respondents herein into the super-speciality courses in D.M./M.Ch., which are subject matter of these writ petitions, is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the official respondents to forthwith consider the cases of petitioners for admission into the resultant vacancies, strictly in accordance with the merit, prepared as per the entrance test conducted by the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences for admission into such courses. No order as to costs." 2. How NIMS responded to the judgment, a narrative of undisputed facts emerging from pleadings of the parties reveal that the operative part and the full text of the judgment reached NIMS on 4.10.2010 and 8.10.2010 respectively (see page 2 of the affidavit of NIMS in WAMP.No.2460 of 2010) and as a follow-up action, an emergency meeting of the Executive Board was convened by NIMS on 11.10.2010 and the Board decided to implement the judgment. Pursuant to the decision of the Board, the NIMS published a notification on 15.10.2010, inviting the students for counseling which was conducted on 20.10.2010 and on completion of the process, the NIMS addressed a letter on 1.11.2010 to the MCI, relevant paragraphs whereof are reproduced hereunder: "Dr. P.V. Ramesh, IAS DIRECTOR NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Rc.No.74/EC/SS/2010 Dated 1st November, 2010 To The Chairman, Board of Governors, Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector - 8, Dwaraka, Phase I, New Delhi 110 077. Sir, Subject: Admissions to DM/M.Ch. Super Speciality courses for the academic year 2010 - Extension of time limit to admit candidates - Request - Reg. Reference: ................. 7. Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed on 30.9.10. 1 to 7 ................................... 8. Sir, Subject: Admissions to DM/M.Ch. Super Speciality courses for the academic year 2010 - Extension of time limit to admit candidates - Request - Reg. Reference: ................. 7. Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed on 30.9.10. 1 to 7 ................................... 8. Dr. J. Ramdas and others have flied a writ petition vide fifth reference before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the notification No.74/EC/SS/2010 dated 10th May 2010 issued by NIMS earmarking seats for in- service candidates. 9. to 13 .............................. 14. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has passed final orders on 30 September 2010, which were received in NIMS on 4-10-2010. The content of the order is as follows: "All these writ, petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned notification dated 10.5.2010 issued by the first respondent – Institute in Rc.No.74/EC/SS/2010 to the extent of earmarking seats for the in-service candidates in the courses, which are subject matter of these writ petitions and admission of unofficial respondents herein into the super speciality courses in DM/M. Ch which are subject matter of these writ petitions is set aside, consequently, there shall be a direction to the official respondents to forthwith consider the cases of petitioners for admission into the resultant vacancies, strictly in accordance with merit prepared as per the entrance test conducted by the Nizam 's Institute of Medical Sciences for admission into such courses, order follows". A copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed herewith. 15. Accordingly, five (5) candidates admitted for the super-speciality courses under in-service quota have been discharged. In addition, one more candidate is also eligible for admission because of non-availability of qualified in-service category in DM Neurology. A notification was issued for conducting counseling for the merit candidates on 17 October 2010. Accordingly, counseling was conducted on 20 October 2010 and provisional admission list has been published. However, no candidate has been admitted to super-speciality courses, as the admission is provisional and subject to the approval of Medical Council of India. 16. In this context, we submit that the Hon'ble High Court of A.P has been pressing the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences for admitting the candidates on merit, whose details are enclosed herewith. However, no candidate has been admitted to super-speciality courses, as the admission is provisional and subject to the approval of Medical Council of India. 16. In this context, we submit that the Hon'ble High Court of A.P has been pressing the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences for admitting the candidates on merit, whose details are enclosed herewith. The Hon'ble High Court has admitted the Contempt Petition against the Director of NIMS in CC Nos.1491, 1492, 1493 and 1494 of 2010, and is threatening to pass final orders in the matter. 17. This institute is unable to proceed further in the matter as the admission process is strictly PROVISIONAL subject to final approval by Medical Council of India (copy enclosed). Keeping in view of the above facts and the circumstances explained, we sincerely request the Medical Council to permit the NIMS to admit the six candidates selected based on merit (list enclosed) in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. to the super-speciality courses duly relaxing the time limit of 30 September 2010. 18. We request early orders in this regard. With regards, Sd/- DirectorNizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) " 3. The communication of the NIMS seeking permission to admit six candidates in compliance with the judgment of the learned single judge was responded by the MCI through its letter dated 2.11.2010, relevant portion whereof reads: "Board of Governors in Supersession of MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA No. MCI-23 (1)/2010-Med./37065 Dated:02/11/2010 The Director, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082 ANDHRA PRADESH Subject: Admission to DM/M.Ch. Super Speciality Courses for the academic year 2010 - Extension of time limit to admit candidates - Regarding. Sir, With reference to your letter No.Rc.No.74/EC/SS/2010 dated 1st November 2010 on the subject noted above, this is to inform you that as per the time schedule prescribed in the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, the last date for admission to super speciality courses is 30th September. In the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations it has also been prescribed that: "............ (ii) there shall be no admission of students in respect of any academic session beyond 31st May for postgraduate courses and 30th September for super speciality courses under any circumstances. The Universities shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date......." Hence there is no provision for relaxation in time limit beyond 30th September for admission in super speciality courses. The Universities shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date......." Hence there is no provision for relaxation in time limit beyond 30th September for admission in super speciality courses. Yours faithfully, Sd/-Dr. P. Prasannaraj (Additional Secretary)" 4. The MCI having denied the permission, therefore, present writ petition, filed with the following prayer: ".............this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the proceedings No. MCI-23 (1)/ 2010-Med/37065, dated 2.11.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent as irrational insofar as implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 21877 of 2010 and batch; (ii) declare the action of the respondents in not admitting the writ petitioners herein in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.21877 of 2010 dated 30.09.2010 as illegal and arbitrary; (iii) declare the Regulation 9.3. of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 have no application to the writ petitioners in view of the peculiar facts of the case; and (iv) consequently direct the respondents to permit the writ petitioners herein to prosecute their Super Speciality courses for the academic year 2010 in the 2nd respondent Institution..............." 5. We have reproduced the relief clause to understand its permissibility or otherwise and would like to address it in reverse order and we start from relief (iii) because if writ petitioners succeed in this prayer, the writ petition has to be allowed but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, which mandates the NIMS to adhere to the Regulation, relief prayed for is like asking for the moon and cannot be granted. Coming to the relief (i) that is the communication of the MCI, declining permission to the NIMS beyond 30.09.2010, in our opinion very rightly, because the Supreme Court has made it obligatory upon the MCI not to admit any student beyond the cut-off date viz. 30.09.2010. Thus, on the face of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, relief prayed for in clauses (ii) and (iv) is impermissible. 6. 30.09.2010. Thus, on the face of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, relief prayed for in clauses (ii) and (iv) is impermissible. 6. We have said it in many words in the preceding paragraph, that grant of relief to the writ petitioners in the writ petition is not possible because the Supreme Court has ruled to the contrary, and have given the reasoning that has prevailed on us for dismissal of the writ appeal. The reasoning so advanced is sufficient to lead us to a conclusion not to entertain the writ petition. However, there is something more to support our view and that follows hereinafter. 7. Notwithstanding the fact, that at times the Regulation of the MCI, prescribing the time schedule for beginning of the process of selection and its completion by stipulated dates, may work harsh to the candidates but with all humility at our command, we deem it proper to remind ourselves and our colleagues that High Court has no power to issue a direction to admit a student beyond the cut-off date. To avoid futile litigation in our Court, arising out of selection to the Super Speciality Courses, we make it clear that High Court cannot issue a direction to admit a student to Postgraduate Super Speciality Course beyond 30.09.2010 to any medical institution, unless decision in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India is altered and that is the privilege of the Supreme Court and not of a High Court, conversely, the writ petition suggests an endeavour to persuade us to do the reverse, as is manifest from the relief sought and we respond with out-right refusal, for the simple reason, that the High Court is required to abide by the law laid down by the Supreme Court faithfully and punctually, a mandate of law that has its roots in Article 141 of the Constitution. Needless to say that an attempt of departure therefrom, if any, by the High Court, fall-out will be judicial indiscipline and we stop here. 8. Needless to say that an attempt of departure therefrom, if any, by the High Court, fall-out will be judicial indiscipline and we stop here. 8. Reverting to the writ sought, a glance at the prayer clause of the writ petition extracted hereinabove, would show that in essence, the writ petitioners aim at admission to the NIMS beyond 30.09.2010, a relief, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, which precludes one and all from admitting a student to Postgraduate Super Speciality Course beyond 30th September, therefore, it will be wastage of the public time to deal with the writ petition. 9. For the reasons stated above, Writ Petition No.29109 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs.