Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 11 (MAN)

Moti Keisam & Others v. State of Manipur & Others

2013-08-26

A.M.SAPRE, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J.:-- 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None appears for the remaining respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners, 10 (ten) in number, who are all aspirants of undergoing medical education at undergraduate level, have approached this Court challenging the decision and order issued by the State Government on 7.6.2013 to adopt the merit list prepared by the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by cancelling the State entrance examination which was scheduled to be held on 9.6.2013 under the “Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004” for the academic year 2013. 3. The facts in brief as pleaded by the petitioners may first be referred to hereinbelow. Pursuant to a Notification dated 19.4.2013 issued by the Medical Directorate, Government of Manipur, under the “Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004” inviting applications for nomination to MBBS/BDS courses against the reserved seats of Manipur in various Medical/Dental Colleges for the session 2013, the petitioners applied for the same. As per the said notification forms were to be submitted from 13.5.2013 to 25.5.2013 and admit cards were to be issued from 1.6.2013 to 7.6.2013. The date of the examination was fixed on 9.6.2013. The petitioners, having been found eligible, were issued admit cards. According to the petitioners, while they were labouring hard in anticipation of the scheduled examination, to their utter shock and dismay found that the said examination scheduled to be held on 9.6.2013 was cancelled by the impugned Notification issued on 7.6.2013 and the State Government decided to adopt the results of the NEET for the purpose of admission to MBBS/BDS courses, which has been challenged in this writ petition. The impugned Notification dated 7.6.2013 reads as follows: “MOST URGENT GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR MEDICAL DIRECTORATE NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 07th June, 2013 No. 104/1/2013-DHS: Whereas, the State Cabinet in its sitting on 6th June, 2013, has decided to adopt the Merit List of NEET 2013-UG conducted by CBSE to nominate the candidates from Manipur State for MBBS/BDS courses after counselling and observing the rules of reservation. No requirement for conduct of separate test for this purpose. No requirement for conduct of separate test for this purpose. Now, in pursuance of Government of Manipur, Secretariat: Health Department letter No. 18/64/2012-M(C) dated 06/06/2013, it is hereby notified to all the concerned candidates and Officers/Officials for Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination, 2013 that the Entrance Examination scheduled on 09th June, 2013 is cancelled. Sd/- (A. Bijoy Singh) Director of Health Services, Manipur.” Thus, by the aforesaid Notification, the State Government decided to adopt the merit list of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) - 2013 UG conducted by the CBSE for nomination of candidates from the Manipur State for MBBS/BDS course by cancelling the proposed State entrance examination. 4. The petitioners claim that the said notification was issued in the late hour of 7.6.2013 thus making it unknown to many candidates who are living in the far flung areas of the State and it caused public hue and cry. The petitioners state that the parents/guardians of the candidates, being aggrieved, formed an association and submitted a representation to the authorities oh 10.6.2013 to reconsider, review/cancel the impugned notification and to conduct the entrance examination under Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004, which, however, was not considered by the authorities. In the said representation, it was submitted that there was no prohibition from any Court including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in holding the State entrance examination for nomination to MBBS/BDS courses and in fact the Christian Medical College, Vellore and others had filed an application before the Supreme Court, being T.C. (C) No. 98 of 2012 assailing the Medical Council of India’s Notification dated 21.12.2010 notifying the Regulations providing for common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the undergraduate courses in Medical Colleges all over the country. It as also stated that many States like Puducherry, Tripura, Sikkim etc. had conducted their own entrance examinations. 5. The petitioners have also stated that no cogent reason had been given by the State Government for adopting the merit list based on NEET nor any such reason is mentioned in the impugned notification. Accordingly, the petitioners have contended that the said notification is liable to be quashed as it was issued by arbitrary exercise of executive power and without application of mind. Accordingly, the petitioners have contended that the said notification is liable to be quashed as it was issued by arbitrary exercise of executive power and without application of mind. It was also contended that the said decision is inhuman, unjust and injurious and detrimental to the interest of the candidates and that the said decision was not in public interest. It was also contended that no prior notice was given to the candidate before cancelling the said entrance examination. The petitioners by filing an additional affidavit have further contended that the pattern of examination conducted by NEET was different from that of the State entrance examination. In the case of NEET, there were four subjects carrying 180 marks each totalling 720 marks. On the other hand, in the case of the proposed State entrance examination, the total marks was 400 with four subjects each carrying 100 marks. According to the petitioners, the petitioners who had prepared on the State examination pattern and syllabus would prefer the State pattern. Moreover, one of the candidates (not amongst the petitioners), who was assigned the examination centre in Guwahati in Assam for the NEET examination could not proceed to Guwahati due to lack of financial resources to appear in the said NEET. These, according to the petitioners, demonstrate the injustice caused to them and other candidates from Manipur by the impugned notification. 6. The State Respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that in terms of Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which empowers the Medical Council of India (MCI/Council) to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government for carrying out the purposes of the Act, the Council framed the Regulations called the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” vide Notification dated 4.3.1997 which was published in the Gazette of India dated 17.5.1997. Regulation 5 of the said Regulations laid down the norms and criteria for admission to the medical colleges, which also provided for a common competitive entrance exami­nation. The said Regulations were amended in 2010 vide Notification dated 21.12.2010 and published on 27.12.2010 which provided for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses and for selection of an organisation to conduct the examination. The said Regulations were amended in 2010 vide Notification dated 21.12.2010 and published on 27.12.2010 which provided for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses and for selection of an organisation to conduct the examination. The said Regulations were further amended vide Notification dated 15.02.2012 which provided that the Notification dated 21.12.2010 would be applicable for the aca­demic session commencing from 2013-2014. 7. The State Government further stated that a number of petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as dif­ferent High Courts challenging the said Regulations containing the decisions of the Medical Council of India (MCI/Council) and Dental Council of India (DCI) to conduct the common entrance test examination namely, “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test” (NEET) for admission to both M.B.B.S and B.D.S. as well as Post-Graduate courses. All the writ petitions filed before the different High Courts were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter was taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 13.12.2012 in those batches of petitions, by which it was, inter alia, directed that: “...............In the meantime, the Medi­cal Council of India, the Dental Council of India, as well as the States and Universities and other Institutions, will be entitled to con­duct their respective examinations for the M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-Graduate courses, but shall not declare the results of the same, until further orders of this Court.” Thus, the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India and the other States and authorities were permitted to conduct their respective examinations, but declara­tion of the results was barred. 8. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it was fur­ther stated that in respect of the State of Manipur, selection of candidates for nomi­nation by the Government of Manipur for admission in the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses in various colleges is regulated by “The Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004.” Rule 5 of the said Rules pro­vides that Selection Board shall hold and conduct a written entrance examination for selection of candidates for nomination. The said Rules of 2004 were amended vide State Notification dated 23.03.2013 by inserting a new proviso to Rule 5 thereof, which provided that if National Eligibility-cum-En­trance Test (NEET-UG) replaces the State entrance examination and if there is no spe­cific Decree/Order of Court for conducting the State entrance examination, the Selection Board will not hold and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination. Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules of 2004 which pro­vides for preparation of selection list was also accordingly modified. The aforesaid amend­ments to Rules 5 and 17 are reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation of the issues involved in this case. “............................................................. 2. Amendment of Chapter-II, Rule 5- In Rule 5- For Selection of Candidate for nomination, the following new proviso shall be inserted, namely -- “Provided that if National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) replaces the State Entrance Examination and if there is no spe­cific Degree/Order of Court for conducting the State Entrance Examination also, the Selection Board will not hold and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Exami­nation.” 3. Amendment of Rule 17 In Rule 17- Select List, the following new proviso shall be inserted below clause (5) of Rule 17, namely - “Provided that if the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) is conducted and its results are to be followed in place of State Entrance Test & its results and if State-wise merit list of the selected candidates is prepared by MCI or other authorised agency as NEET and State Health & Medical De­partment is entrusted the responsibility of counselling the candidates for admission into Medical & Dental Colleges against the State quota seats, the candidates from the said se­lect list of NEET only will be counselled and nominated for admission to MBBS/BDS course by following the existing Reservation Policy. Eligible candidates of the State shall apply in duly filled in application form (Annexure VIII to Rule 17) for open counsel­ling for nomination for MBBS/BDS Course in Medical/Dental College inside/outside the State of Manipur. Prescribed Application Form is obtainable from the Directorate of Medical & Health Services on payment of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) and Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only for General/OBC and State respondents/SC candidates respectively. Prescribed Application Form is obtainable from the Directorate of Medical & Health Services on payment of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) and Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only for General/OBC and State respondents/SC candidates respectively. The Selection Board shall make the Select List and Wait List from amongst the eligible candidates/applicants who obtain and submit the duly filled prescribed form.” Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India also to proceed with their common entrance test, i.e. National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG), 2013, the said examination was held on 15.05.2013 and altogether 5333 candidates from the State of Manipur applied for the said test and 4950 candidates (including the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10) appeared in the said NEET. In view of the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court entitling the MCI/DCI and various colleges and States to hold examinations, State of Manipur also took steps to hold entrance examination and issued the Notification dated 19.04.2013 by which applications were invited from in­tending candidates for selection of candidates for nomination to MBSS/BDS Courses against the reserved seats of Manipur in the various Medical/Dental Colleges for the ses­sion, 2013 as mentioned above. Subsequently, however, before the State could conduct the State entrance examina­tion scheduled on 09.06.2013 as notified ear­lier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 13.05.2013 allowing the declaration of results of examination which had been held so far by the MCI/DCI etc., primarily to safeguard the interest of the students. The rel­evant portions of the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced herein below:-- “...................................... 5. While the matters were being heard, we had been informed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and the Karnataka Pvt. Medical & Dental College, that a large num­ber of students would be adversely affected and would stand to lose a year, if the bar on the declaration of their results was not lifted. 5. While the matters were being heard, we had been informed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and the Karnataka Pvt. Medical & Dental College, that a large num­ber of students would be adversely affected and would stand to lose a year, if the bar on the declaration of their results was not lifted. Although, initially, we had declined to en­tertain such prayer, on account of the delay in completion of the hearing and the pros­pect of the students losing a year on account thereof, we feel that students hoping to gain admission in the MBBS as well as Post-Graduate courses on the strength of the re­sults of the examinations, which have already been held and for which they had appeared, should not be denied such opportunity, at least for this year. We are also alive to the fact that it is the Post-Graduate students in the medical colleges, who take charge of the medical treatment of patients in the hospi­tals. Without fresh entrants into the Post-Graduate courses, even for a year, the hospi­tals are likely to be adversely affected on account of lack of doctors to directly take care of the patients in the hospitals. 6. Apart from the above, the students, who aspire to gain entry into the medical colleges at the MBBS and BDS and the Post-Gradu­ate levels, have been caught in the legal tangle for no fault of theirs and are the vic­tims of policy decisions. In order to safeguard their interest, as also the interest of the hos­pitals, we consider it just and equitable to lift the bar imposed by us on 13th Decem­ber, 2012, for this year’s entrance examina­tions and, to that extant, we modify our or­der of 13th December, 2012, and allow the results of the examinations already conducted to be declared to enable the students to take advantage of the same for the current year.” 9. Pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the result of common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), 2013 conducted by the CBSE was declared on 5.6.2013. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the State Government stated that it was found that from the State of Manipur, a total number of 2956 candidates (550 Others, 167-SC, 863-ST, 1378-OBC-PH, 3-OBC) were found qualified in the said common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The petitioner Nos. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the State Government stated that it was found that from the State of Manipur, a total number of 2956 candidates (550 Others, 167-SC, 863-ST, 1378-OBC-PH, 3-OBC) were found qualified in the said common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 were also found to be qualified in the said test. According to the State respondents, with the declaration of NEET result on 5.6.2013 as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government felt that there was no require­ment to conduct a separate examination by the State Health Department. Accordingly, considering the overall situation, the State Cabinet took a decision on 6.6.2013 to adopt the merit list of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG conducted by the CBSE for nomination of candidates from the State of Manipur for MBBS/BDS Course in terms of the “proviso” to the amended Rule 5 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Ex­amination (Selection of Candidates for Nomi­nation) Rules, 2004. Pursuant to the said State Cabinet decision, the Government of Manipur issued a notification on 7.6.2013 notifying all the concerned candidates and others that the result of the NEET would be used for nomination and the entrance exami­nation which was scheduled to be held on 9.6.13 stood cancelled as quoted above, which is challenged in this writ petition. 10. The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that in terms of the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various States had conducted entrance examinations and the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candi­dates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 was never annulled or repealed and as such, there was/is no restriction or prohibition in conducting the entrance examination on 9.6.2013 which was notified by the State Government on 19.4.2013. The petitioners further contended that the State respondents have also not clari­fied on the details regarding counselling of candidates for other seats other than 15% All India quota on the basis of the NEET results. 11. Before this matter was taken up for final hearing, considering the nature of the controversy involved in the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 11.7.2013 directed the petitioners to implead the Union of India as well as the Medical Council of India as party respondents also as they would be nec­essary parties for proper adjudication of the dispute raised. Accordingly, the said newly impleaded respondents were notified. How­ever, they have neither appeared nor filed any affidavit-in-opposition. Accordingly, the said newly impleaded respondents were notified. How­ever, they have neither appeared nor filed any affidavit-in-opposition. Thus, their views are not available and hence, not considered. 12. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that after the noti­fication was issued on 19.4.2013 for holding the entrance examination on 9.6.2013, the State authorities had issued admit cards and the candidates including the present petition­ers were preparing hard for the said entrance examination. However, without assigning any reason, the State Government suddenly cancelled the proposed entrance examination which was a mala fide act and was not in public interest, causing injustice to the can­didates. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the said Cabinet decision was taken in post haste on 6.6.2013 and cancellation was notified only on 7.6.2013 and not widely publicised and was not known to many candidates who were living in far flung areas of the State. Learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.12.2012 had permitted not only the Medical Council of India but also the State Governments to hold the entrance examinations, pursuant to which the Manipur Government itself issued the notification on 19.4.2013 for holding the entrance examination and as such, cancella­tion of the said proposed State entrance ex­amination without any reason is quite arbi­trary, more so, when there was no direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to cancel or not to hold any such entrance examination. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the pe­titioners also submitted that ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the final judg­ment and order dated 18.7.2013 had quashed the notification dated 21.12.2010 published by the Medical Council of India as well as the notification dated 31.5.2012 published by the Dental Council of India containing the amended Regulations by holding that neither the Medical Council of India nor the Dental Council of India were empowered to con­duct the NEET. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the role attributed to and the pow­ers conferred on the Medical Council of In­dia and Dental Council of India under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentist Act, 1948 does not contemplate anything different and rather restrictive to laying down standard which are uniformly applicable to all Medical Colleges and institutions in India to ensure the excel­lence of medical education in India and Medi­cal Council of India does not have the power to conduct the common NEET. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para No. 163 of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 as follows:-- “163. The Transferred Cases and the Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed and the im­pugned Notification Nos. MCI-31(1)72010-MED/49068, and MCI.18(1)/2010-MED/49070, both dated 21st December, 2010, pub­lished by the Medical Council of India along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2010 dated 31st May, 2012, published by the Dental Council of India and the amended Regula­tions sought to be implemented thereunder along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated 31st May, 2012 published by the Den­tal Council of India, are hereby quashed. This will not, however, invalidate actions so far taken under the amended Regulations includ­ing the admissions already given on the ba­sis of the NEET conducted by the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of In­dia and other private medical institutions, and the same shall be valid for all purposes.” According to the learned Sr. counsel ap­pearing for the petitioners, in view of the fact that the conduct of the NEET was held to be illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government is under bounden duty to conduct their own entrance examination as was proposed under notification dated 19.4.2013. As a corollary, according to him, the notification dated 7.6.2013 cancelling the entrance examination scheduled to be held on 9.6.2013 is liable to be set aside and quashed. According to him, the nomination of candidates for the seats reserved for the State of Manipur is to be made in terms of the provisions of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candi­dates for Nomination) Rules, 2004. According to him, the nomination of candidates for the seats reserved for the State of Manipur is to be made in terms of the provisions of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candi­dates for Nomination) Rules, 2004. It was also contended that even under the amended Rule 17, State wise merit list of selected can­didates is to be prepared by the Medical Council of India or other authorised agency, which, however, has not been prepared by the Medical Council of India nor the Rules have defined as to who would be the authorised agency as mentioned in the amended Rule 17. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the pe­titioners by referring to the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has contended that what had been saved are only those actions taken un­der the amended Regulations including the admission already given on the basis of the NEET upto the date of the passing of the judgment i.e. 18.7.2013 and it does not save any of the actions taken thereafter. In other words, any action taken by the State Gov­ernment after the judgment was declared on 18.7.2013 will not be saved. He further con­tends that since the State Government had not conducted any counselling on the basis of the result of the NEET and the admission had not yet been granted so far, after the pass­ing of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.7.2013, the State Government at present could neither conduct the coun­selling nor direct admission on the basis of the results of the NEET. According to him, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had quashed the Regulations issued by the Medi­cal Council of India and Dental Council of India for holding NEET and since the results of the NEET had not been acted upon by the State Government till the passing of the fi­nal judgment and order, the same cannot be acted upon now and the Government will be under legal obligation to hold the State en­trance examination under the provisions of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Exami­nation (Selection of Candidates for Nomi­nation) Rules, 2004. 13. The crux of the argument of the learned Sr. 13. The crux of the argument of the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the action of the State Government in cancelling the proposed State entrance ex­amination without assigning any reason is ar­bitrary and hence illegal and the policy deci­sion of the State Government to adopt the results of the NEET was arbitrarily taken. Further, since the Regulations providing for NEET had been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be impermissible for the State Government to act on the re­sults of the NEET now. In support of his contentions, the learned Sr. counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Anr. v. K.S. Jagannathan & Anr.; AIR 1987 SC 537 , RBF RIG Corporation, Mumbai v. Commissioner of Customs (Im­ports), Mumbai; (2011) 3 SCC 573 : (2011 AIR SCW 1155), Onkar Lal Bajaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 673 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2562 ), State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty; (2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011 AIR SCW 1332), Collector of Central, Excise, Calcutta v. Berger Paints India Ltd.; AIR 1990 SC 1276 , Haryana State In­dustrial Development Corporation v. Shakuntala & Ors.; (2010) 12 SCC 448 : ( AIR 2010 SC 468 ), State of Haryana & Ors. v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.; (2004) 12 SCC 540 , Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Co. & Anr.; (2003) 5 SCC 437 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3983 ). 14. The learned Advocate General appear­ing for the State Respondents however, has countered the contention of the petitioners by stating that the decision to adopt the re­sults of NEET and to cancel the scheduled entrance examination was taken by the State Government after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the final order had saved the actions taken pursuant to the Notifica­tion issued by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India, the admissions can be based on the results of the NEET. It was also further contended that the State Government took the decision to cancel the State entrance examination scheduled on 9.6.2013 after the NEET results were de­clared on 6.6.2013 after the Supreme Court had allowed conduct of the said common national entrance test and declaration of the results. The learned Advocate General also stated that the State Government had earlier issued the Notification on 19.4.2013 for hold­ing the State entrance examination as till that time there was uncertainty about the NEET on account of the challenges made in the Su­preme Court and order not to declare the re­sults of the examinations. However, after the Supreme Court by subsequent order dated 13.05.2013 had allowed declaration of result to enable the students to take advantage of the same for the current year, the State Gov­ernment took the policy decision to act on the results of the NEET and accordingly can­celled the proposed State examination. Thus, according to the learned Advocate General, therefore, there was no arbitrariness in the action taken by the State Government. 15. On consideration of the pleadings and rival claims of the parties, the main issue which arises for consideration by this Court is whether, the decision of the State Govern­ment to cancel the proposed State entrance examination and adopt the results of the NEET for the purpose of admission to the undergraduate medical courses, in the back­drop of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is liable to be interfered with or not. 16. In order to appreciate the issue better it may be apposite to recapitulate the essen­tial facts of the case as follows.-- (i) 1997: The Medical Council of India issued the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” laying down the norms for admission to Medical courses. (ii) 2012: The aforesaid Regulations were amended in 2012 which provided for hold­ing of “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test to MBBS course” to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education for the purpose of admission to the Medical Colleges. The said amendments were chal­lenged by some of the States and private col­leges before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and some High Courts. The matter was heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after transferring to itself all the cases pending before the vari­ous High Courts. The said amendments were chal­lenged by some of the States and private col­leges before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and some High Courts. The matter was heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after transferring to itself all the cases pending before the vari­ous High Courts. (iii) 13.12.2012: Pending final decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order entitling the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India as well as States and Universities and Institutions to conduct their respective examinations but not to de­clare the results. (iv) 23.3.2013: State Government amended the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004 also enabling the State Government to act on the results of the NEET. (v) 19.4.2013: State Government notified for holding State entrance examination and fixes the date of examination on 9.6.2013. (vi) 13.5.2013: Hon’ble Supreme Court al­lowed declaration of results already con­ducted by Medical Council of India and other Institutions to enable the students to take advantage of the same for the current year. (vii) 5.6.2013: CBSE declared the results of the NEET. (viii) 7.6.2013: State Government adopted the results of the NEET for admission to MBBS-UG courses and also cancelled the scheduled State entrance examination slated on 9.6.2013. (ix) 18.7.2013: Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the Regulations providing for com­mon National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, NEET for admission, but held that actions so far taken under the amended Regulations including the admissions already given on the basis of the NEET conducted by the Medical Council of India, the Dental Coun­cil of India and other private medical insti­tutions shall be valid for all purposes. 17. In the light of the above facts, we will examine if the decisions of the State Gov­ernment to adopt the merit list based on the results of the NEET and to cancel the State entrance examination were bad in law as con­tended by the petitioners. From the above facts what is evident is that, due to the challenge of the Regulations of the MCI/DCI providing for common en­trance examination at the national level be­fore the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there seemed to be some amount of uncertainty about the admission process, as to whether the MCI/DCI Regulations providing for com­mon entrance examination for the entire country would prevail over the decentralised and separate entrance examinations conducted by the various States/institutions or not. Purportedly to overcome this uncertainty due to pendency of the Court cases, the State Government amended the State Rules to fall back upon either of the two admission pro­cesses, one under the MCI/DCI Regulations and other under the State Rules. This is clear from the amendments to the Rules 5 and 17 of the State Rules of 2004, providing for en­abling the State Government to follow the results of the NEET in the event it replaces the State entrance examination. The learned Advocate General, Manipur had also submit­ted that since the cases pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were taking longer time than expected to be finally decided, the State Government in order to avoid any last minute hitches and uncertainty, decided to hold the State level entrance examination and accordingly, issued the Notification on 19.4.2013 notifying the holding of State level entrance examination on 9.6.2013. In view of the above, this action of the State Government to notify the holding of the State entrance examination seems to be reasonable. However, before the State en­trance examination could be held on 9.6.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 13.5.2013 permitting declaration of results of various examinations including NEET to enable the students to take advantage of the same, thereby allowing ad­mission on the basis of the examinations held so far. In other words, in view of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2013, admissions could be made ei­ther on the basis of the NEET or the localised entrance examinations which had been al­ready conducted. Thus, it was permissible for the State Government to act upon the results of the NEET in terms of the MCI/DCI Regu­lations rather than holding their own entrance examination. Pursuant to the said interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the re­sults of the NEET was declared on 5.6.2013 which was before the scheduled date of the State level entrance examination on 9.6.2013. It is the case of the State Respondents that after the said results of the NEET were de­clared and considering the fact that as many as 5333 candidates from Manipur had ap­peared in the said NEET out of whom 2956 were found qualified, the State Government took the policy decision to act upon the re­sults of the NEET and cancel the proposed State level entrance examination. This Court is of the view that in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decision of the State Government to act upon the results of the NEET and to cancel the proposed entrance examination, has a ratio­nal and natural correlation to the unfolding facts and circumstances as mentioned above and therefore, it cannot be said to be arbi­trary. The amendment to Rule 5 of the State Rules also enables the State Government to rely on the results of the NEET, to which, the petitioners have not taken any exception. As a corollary, if the Rules enable the State Government to rely on the results of the NEET, as also permitted by the Hon’ble Su­preme Court as a one time measure, there was no need to go for another process of State level entrance examination, as, such dupli­cation would have created more confusions and uncertainties in nominating the candi­dates. Therefore, under the aforesaid circum­stances, cancelling the proposed State entrance examination was a natural and nor­mal course of action which could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 18. It may be also noted that had the MCI/DCI Regulations been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government would have been under legal obligation to rely only on the NEET results and could not have con­ducted the State entrance examination. As mentioned above, however, an element of uncertainty had ensued on account of the challenges to these MCI/DCI Regulations made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also on account of interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.12.2012 not to declare the results of the examinations so held. Therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and unnatural on the part of the State Government not to proceed to hold any State entrance examination at that time. On the other hand, the subsequent decision of the State Government to notify on 19.4.2013 for holding of State entrance examination on 06.6.2013 which was on account of the de­lay in the final decision of the Hon’ble Su­preme Court, as contended by the State respondents, also cannot be said to be unrea­sonable. On the other hand, the subsequent decision of the State Government to notify on 19.4.2013 for holding of State entrance examination on 06.6.2013 which was on account of the de­lay in the final decision of the Hon’ble Su­preme Court, as contended by the State respondents, also cannot be said to be unrea­sonable. It may be noted that in the meantime, the State respondents had also amended the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 to take care of any eventuality which may arise on account of the final de­cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which could have gone either way, either allowing the MCI/DCI Regulations or striking these down. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its interim order dated 13.5.2013 had clari­fied that the MCI/DCI, States, Institutions, Colleges could announce the results of the examinations held so far to enable the stu­dents to take admission, it was open to the State Government to rely on the result of the NEET, which could not be said to be unrea­sonable. If the State Government had decided to adopt the results of the NEET, there was no need to go for the State entrance exami­nation. In other words, these acts of the State Government first, to notify holding of State level entrance examination and thereafter to cancel it, and to adopt the results of the NEET, cannot be said to be arbitrary or un­reasonable as these actions were based on the emerging and unfolding circumstances. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that the decision taken by the State authorities to cancel the said State en­trance examination and to adopt the NEET result is arbitrary, cannot be accepted as there were sufficient reasons for adopting such course of action as discussed above. 19. The contention of the petitioners that no reason was assigned for the said decision of the State Government cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there was no neces­sity to assign any reason in the impugned order as there was no statutory requirement to do so. Otherwise also, even if the reasons were not publicly announced, as already noted above, there were sufficient and good reasons for taking the said action. Otherwise also, even if the reasons were not publicly announced, as already noted above, there were sufficient and good reasons for taking the said action. The peti­tioners’ further plea that the candidates were not notified of such cancellation also cannot be accepted as the petitioners are merely can­didates and no right had accrued to them en­titling them of any notice before cancella­tion of the examination, which was yet to be held. The Government authorities could can­cel the proposed State entrance examination without giving any notice to them. It may be also noted that what is important is that there should be transparency and fairness in the process of nomination on the basis of public examination. In the present case, the said object was fulfilled by relying upon the re­sults of the NEET which was based on the public examination conducted by a reputed agency, the CBSE, and since there is no alle­gation relating to the conduct of the exami­nation by the CBSE, the claim of the peti­tioners not to adopt the NEET result, is with­out any basis. There is no right of any candi­date for demanding any particular method of selection process unless the statutory provi­sions specifically provides for it. The peti­tioners could not choose the State level en­trance examination over the NEET. In the present case, Rule 5 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 as amended on 23.3.2013 specifically enables the State Government to act upon the NEET and it further provides that if there is no spe­cific decree or order of the Court for con­ducting State entrance examination, the Se­lection Board will not hold and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination. Therefore, it was open to the State Government either to adopt the results of the NEET or to hold the State level entrance examina­tion. Adopting either of the courses cannot be said to be arbitrary. Further, even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had quashed the MCI/DCI Regulations providing for NEET, the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 also clarified that such quashing will not invalidate actions “so far taken under the amended regulations” and “the same shall be valid for all purposes”. The impugned notification dated 7.6.2013 was an action taken under the amended Regu­lations and as such, that notification shall be valid for all purposes as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The impugned notification dated 7.6.2013 was an action taken under the amended Regu­lations and as such, that notification shall be valid for all purposes as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the final judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.7.2013 merely saves only those actions taken under the amended Regu­lations upto the date of judgment and not those actions taken after the passing of the judgment on 18.7.2013. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel has contended that the processes for counselling, nomination and admission in respect of the State of Manipur which are yet to be undertaken will be be­yond the saving clause of the final judgment. According to him, after the final judgment and order was passed on 18.7.2013, there could not be any counselling/nomination or admission. Therefore, the only alternative is to hold the State level entrance examination. This contention, however, has been noted only to be rejected for the reason that these acts of nomination, counselling and admis­sions are the continuation of and are insepa­rable and integral part of the earlier action of the State Government to adopt the merit list of NEET, 2013 conducted by the CBSE for nominating the candidates from the Manipur State for MBBS/BDS course after the coun­selling. These processes are nothing but natu­ral consequences and necessary corollary of the “action taken” by the State Government to act upon the result of the NEET, as de­clared and notified on 7.6.2013 which were before the pronouncement of the final judg­ment and order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in our view, these subse­quent and consequential actions are covered by the expression “actions so far taken” and would come within the purview of the sav­ing clause of the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. Nomination and admission are not inde­pendent actions or unconnected with the de­cision of the State Government to adopt the merit list of the NEET as notified in the no­tification dated 7.6.2013 but are consequen­tial actions in continuation of the “earlier action” to adopt the results of the NEET and cannot be said to beyond the scope of “ac­tions so far taken”, mentioned in the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. In other words, nomination, counselling and admis­sion are process which are intrinsically re­lated and integral part and continuation of the “actions so far taken” within the scope of the final judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even if the counselling and admission are to take place after 18.7.2013, these are natural consequential acts and continuation of the “action” taken by the State Govern­ment before the final judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is to adopt the merit list of NEET for nomination of candidates for MBBS/BDS courses after counselling and to cancel the State level entrance examina­tion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also has clarified that these actions shall be valid for all purposes and as such, it will be deemed that the action to adopt the results of the NEET for nomination for all purposes which includes the subsequent and consequential process of nominations, counselling and ad­mission for the academic session, 2013 which will be valid. 21. The other contentions of the petition­ers that some of the candidates could not appear in the NEET on account of financial hardship or that the petitioners had prepared for another pattern of examination cannot be ground for setting aside the decision of the State Government to adopt the merit list of NEET, 2013 UG conducted by the CBSE. It is also not the case of the petitioners that majority of the candidates in Manipur could not appear in the NEET thus depriving a large number of students to compete. In fact, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 had themselves ap­peared in the said NEET and they had men­tioned the case of only one person who could not proceed to Gauhati to take part in the NEET. As such, there are no valid ground for raising any grievance against the adop­tion of NEET which had been validated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for this academic sessions as per the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. In view of the above, the various judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel are not applicable in the present case. 22. In the facts and circumstances, for the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed, however, without any costs. Petition dismissed. __________