Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 580 (CAL)

Ananya Halder v. Union of India

2018-08-17

ASHA ARORA, DIPANKAR DATTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. A tricky question emerges for decision on these two intra-court writ appeals, which are directed against separate but identical judgments of a learned Judge of this Court refusing to grant relief to the appellants leading to dismissal of their writ petitions. We have to decide whether to uphold the legalistic views of the learned Judge or, bearing in mind the character of the rules/regulations under consideration, the decisions of the Supreme Court cited at the bar as well as the Constitutional obligations of the State to secure equal opportunities to all, to the extent possible, we ought to interfere and thereby temper justice with some degree of empathy. 2. The facts and circumstances that have unfolded before us ought to be noted as a prologue to our decision. A. The two appellants, Ananya and Nikita, are residents of Port Blair, the capital of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (hereafter the said UT). After succeeding in the Higher Secondary (10+2) examinations with fairly high marks, the appellants dreamt of becoming doctors. There is no medical college in the said UT; hence, they participated in the All India Pre-Medical Test, 2014 (hereafter the AIPMT-2014) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the CBSE). From the materials on record, we can assess that at least candidates in excess of two lakh seventy-three thousand had taken the AIPMT-2014. While Nikita, having obtained 349 marks, was ranked 40,928, the rank of Ananya, who closely followed her with 347 marks, was 41648. Both were included in the category of III-B. We shall advert to this category a little later. B. The procedure for admission in MBBS/BDS courses conducted by various State–run medical colleges and private medical colleges are regulated by the Medical Council of India (hereafter the MCI) by framing regulations from time to time. The regulations, relevant to the present controversy, are titled “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” (hereafter the 1997 Regulations). B. The procedure for admission in MBBS/BDS courses conducted by various State–run medical colleges and private medical colleges are regulated by the Medical Council of India (hereafter the MCI) by framing regulations from time to time. The regulations, relevant to the present controversy, are titled “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” (hereafter the 1997 Regulations). Since we are concerned with the MBBS course, two of the basic requirements for admission in such course required to be noted are that (i) an aspiring candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination (10+2); and (ii) must have also secured a minimum of 50% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the competitive entrance examination. The rank obtained by the candidate in the competitive entrance examination would be determinative of his/her merit and depending upon the number of seats that are available in the medical colleges, admission would be made strictly in order of merit. C. Despite the above stipulations in the 1997 Regulations, a letter dated February 27, 2014 was issued by the Director (ME), Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, addressed to, inter alia, the Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department of the said UT. As would appear from a reading of such letter and the facts and circumstances following it, this letter dated February 27, 2014 appears to be the root of the litigative exercise before this Court. We consider it absolutely necessary to quote the said letter hereinbelow: “Subject : Allocation of Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2014-15 – reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to say that this Ministry has received the communications from beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments seeking clarification on the mode of selection of candidates for nomination against Central Pool UG and PG dental seats. 2. The matter has been considered in this Ministry in light of judgment/directions passed by Apex Court in various cases, it has been decided with the approval of competent authority that for this academic year i.e. 2014-15, the selection of students will be made by the beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments on the basis of marks obtained by the students in the Entrance Tests conducted by the beneficiary State/UT/Govt. Department. Departments on the basis of marks obtained by the students in the Entrance Tests conducted by the beneficiary State/UT/Govt. Department. If the beneficiary State/UT/Govt. Department is not conducting any examination, the selection will be made on the basis of marks obtained by the students in All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test (AIPMT) conducted by CBSE. In any circumstances, the selection of students will not be made merely on academic merit of 10+2 marks.” D. The contents of the aforesaid letter finds reiteration in a subsequent letter dated September 2, 2014, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare). It was also addressed, inter alia, to the Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare Department of the said UT. For facility of decision, the relevant portions of the said letter are quoted below: “Subject: Central Pool MBBS & BDS seats – allocation for the year 2014-15-reg. Sir, I am directed to forward herewith a statement indicating the number of MBBS/BDS seats alongwith the colleges concerned allocated to your State/Union Territory for the academic session 2014-15 from the Central Pool. 2. The following points may kindly be kept in view in this regard:- (i) It is once again reiterated that only the children of (i) permanent residents of the State/UT concerned; (ii) the employees of the State/UT Government concerned; (iii) the employees of the Central/other State/UT Government on deputation to the State/UT concerned and (iv) the employees of the Central/other State/UT Govt. posted in and having their headquarters within the State/UT concerned will be eligible. (ii) The children of Central/State/UT Government employees aforementioned should be treated at par with the local resident. (iii) 22½% of the seats allotted to each State/UT concerned will be reserved for students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes of that State/UT. The break-up of this reservation will be as follows:- (a) ******* (b) ******* (c) ******* (v) ********* (v) The admission of candidates to various colleges will depend on their fulfilling the eligibility criteria, conditions of admission and other requirements as laid down by the concerned institution/State Govt. which may be ascertained from the concerned colleges. (vi) The selection of eligible candidates will be made as per clarification conveyed vide this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 27.2.2014 (copy enclosed). which may be ascertained from the concerned colleges. (vi) The selection of eligible candidates will be made as per clarification conveyed vide this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 27.2.2014 (copy enclosed). The copy of the merit list together with copies of allotment letters may be sent to this Ministry. 3. The selected candidates may be advised to report to the concerned college(s) for admission well in time. 4. Since the purpose of Central Pool Scheme is to make available-qualified medical professionals in the beneficiary States/UTs, therefore it has been decided to instruct all the beneficiary States/UTs to ensure that its selected students to execute a bond undertaking to serve in the respective State/UT for a minimum period of 5 years after completing graduation. 5. It should be ensured that every selected candidate carries duly attested-documents including his/her attested photograph, when reporting for admission. 6. An intimation may be sent to the undersigned within seven days of the actual admission of the selected candidate, alongwith a list of selected candidates and their marks. 7. If any of the allocated seats is not utilized, this Ministry should be informed forthwith. In case any seat remains un-utilised and this Ministry is not informed about it, giving the name of the college in which the seat is being surrendered, this Ministry may have no choice but to curtail the allotment of seats for that State in the succeeding years. 8. It is requested that the States/UTs should nominate their candidates on the basis of merit system devised by them keeping in view the above guidelines. The children of All India Service Officers posted in these States/UTs would also be eligible to participate in the said merit system. 9. The receipt of this communication may kindly be acknowledged immediately.” (underlining in original) (bold font for emphasis by us) The statement which was sought to be forwarded by the said letter dated September 2, 2014 contained the allocation of MBBS/BDS seats from the Central Pool quota to the said UT for the academic session 2014-15. The seats, inter alia, included two seats in the MBBS course in Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal (hereafter the said college). The seats, inter alia, included two seats in the MBBS course in Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal (hereafter the said college). E. There is a document on record, i.e., a list, which reveals the identity of the 13 candidates from the said UT who were allotted to various medical colleges in West Bengal, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and New Delhi based on their respective rank in the AIPMT-2014. This list places the candidates in diverse categories, viz. I, II, III-A, III-B and IV. We have been informed that while category I denotes tribals, category II denotes deputationists and Central Government employees, category III denotes settlers and category IV denotes other locals having 10 years education in the said UT. The division of category III into A and B is with regard to settlers who settled in the UT prior to 1942 (III-A) and post 1947 (III-B). It seems that students belonging to such categories, as above, were only considered for nomination by the administration of the said UT. F. On the basis of their respective rank in the AIPMT-2014, the appellants, belonging to category III-B, were nominated by the said UT for admission in the said college. They were duly admitted and in due course of time, were promoted to the second year of the MBBS course. It was thereafter that the appellants found that they were on muddy ground. G. It seems to be the requirement of the 1997 Regulations that full particulars of those admitted in the MBBS course are required to be laid before the MCI. The principal of the said college, accordingly, had laid the particulars of the appellants before the MCI. The MCI, upon scrutiny of the marks obtained by the appellants at the AIPMT-2014, found that they had not secured 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together. The principal was, accordingly, called upon by the MCI to clarify, by letters dated March 4, 2015 and May 1, 2015, the basis for admitting the appellants in the said college despite their deficiency in the qualifying marks. By a letter dated May 14, 2015, the principal informed the MCI that the appellants having been nominated by the administration of the said UT by letter dated September 12, 2014, he had no other choice but to admit them. The MCI thereafter exchanged correspondence with the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. By a letter dated May 14, 2015, the principal informed the MCI that the appellants having been nominated by the administration of the said UT by letter dated September 12, 2014, he had no other choice but to admit them. The MCI thereafter exchanged correspondence with the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Referring to the letter dated May 26, 2015 of the MCI, the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated June 10, 2015 informed the secretary of the MCI as follows: “Subject: Nomination of ineligible candidates by beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments for admission against Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats during the academic year 2014-15 – Reported by Medical Council of India – reg. Madam, I am directed to refer to your letter Nos. MCI_34(MC)/2014-108982 dated 26.5.2015 on the subject mentioned above and to say that you have requested for confirming the eligibility and nomination of the following Central Pool Nominee candidates: S. No. Name of candidate Nominating State/UT/Govt. Department % Score in Entrance Examination Name of college 1. Ms. Ananya Halder A & N Islands 48.19% Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal 2. Ms. Nikita Das A & N Islands 48.47% Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal 2. In this regard you are informed that for the academic year 2014-15,relaxation in prescribed qualifying marks in Entrance Examination have not been granted for any category of students including Central Pool Quota students (except for foreign national students nominated by Ministry of External Affairs against Central Pool Seats as per their bilateral agreements with the friendly foreign countries). Therefore the eligibility of the above students may be decided by the Medical Council of India as per prevailing Regulations. 3. As regards confirmation that whether the above candidates are Nominees of Govt. of India it is informed that the allocation of Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats is made by this Ministry to beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments and selection and nomination of candidates against the allocated seats is done by the beneficiaries themselves. Therefore, this confirmation may be obtained from their nominating authorities by MCI.” H. Upon receiving such response, a sub-committee of the MCI considered the entire matter and recommended to the Executive Committee of the MCI that the appellants ought to be “discharged” for having secured 48.19% and 48.47% marks respectively, i.e., less than the minimum qualifying marks of 50%. Therefore, this confirmation may be obtained from their nominating authorities by MCI.” H. Upon receiving such response, a sub-committee of the MCI considered the entire matter and recommended to the Executive Committee of the MCI that the appellants ought to be “discharged” for having secured 48.19% and 48.47% marks respectively, i.e., less than the minimum qualifying marks of 50%. Such decision was accepted by the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on October 28, 2015. By a letter dated November 18, 2015, the principal of the said college was directed to cancel the admission granted to the appellants. Acting on the basis of the decision of the MCI, the principal of the said college issued separate “discharge order” dated December 1, 2015 addressed to the appellants. I. Such cancellation of admission having been brought to the notice of the administration of the said UT, a flurry of letters followed at its instance. At least two letters issued in 2015 are on record dated December 4, 2015 and December 9, 2015. The first one was issued by the Assistant Secretary (Hr. Edn.) and the other by the Secretary (Education) of the administration. In both the letters it was highlighted that in nominating the appellants, the administration had followed paragraph 2 of the letter dated February 27, 2014 issued by the Director (ME) [which we have referred to in sub-paragraph C (supra)]. J. The aforesaid letters addressed to the Assistant Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the MCI did not evoke any response. By a further letter dated January 28, 2016, the Secretary (Education) of the administration of the said UT requested the Joint Secretary as follows: “Kind reference is invited to this Administration’s letter of even number dated 04.12.2015 and D.O Letter dated 09.12.2015 and subsequent reminder letter dated 13.01.2016 in the matter relating to cancellation of admission of the candidates namely Ms. Ananya Halder and Ms. Nikita Halder for MBBS course in Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan under Central Pool Quota, nominated by this Administration. The selection of the above referred candidates for MBBS course under Central Pool Quota have been made on the basis of clarification issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide letter dated 27.02.2014. As no direction were contained in the above referred letters regarding allotment of Central Pool MBBS and BDS seats to only qualified candidates. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide letter dated 27.02.2014. As no direction were contained in the above referred letters regarding allotment of Central Pool MBBS and BDS seats to only qualified candidates. Hence, as per the above direction of the Ministry, this Administration has allotted 13 MBBS and 2 BDS seats to the students of A & N Islands under Central Pool for the academic year 2014-15 on the basis of marks obtained in AIPMT-2014. In view of above, it is requested that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the respective institutions to annul the cancellation of admission of the candidates nominated for MBBS and BDS course under Central Pool Quota by this Administration for the academic year 2014-15, as this jeopardizes their future career prospects leaving them in lurch.” Unfortunately, there was no response once again. K. These material facts in the background, the appellants were obviously faced with a bleak future. The decision of the MCI directing cancellation of their admission while they were pursuing studies in the second year, without granting any opportunity of hearing, had wrecked their dreams of becoming doctors. Finding no other option, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by presenting separate writ petitions. While pleading why the impugned decisions should be set aside, it was also pleaded that there were other candidates, admitted in the MBBS course for the session 2014-2015 from the Central Pool quota along with the appellants on nomination made by administration of the said UT, who had secured lesser marks than them but their admissions had not been cancelled. A case of discrimination was, thus, sought to be set up. L. A learned Judge of this Court by separate orders of even date (March 21, 2016) while admitting the writ petitions and directing exchange of affidavits granted the appellants interim relief by restraining the MCI and the principal of the said college to give effect to the letters dated November 18, 2015 and December 1, 2015 until disposal of the writ petitions. M. None appeared for the said college to oppose the writ petition. Neither the administration of the said UT nor the Union of India (respondent no.1) chose to file counter affidavit. Only the MCI contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. It stressed that the 1997 Regulations had statutory force and, therefore, were binding in character. M. None appeared for the said college to oppose the writ petition. Neither the administration of the said UT nor the Union of India (respondent no.1) chose to file counter affidavit. Only the MCI contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. It stressed that the 1997 Regulations had statutory force and, therefore, were binding in character. The affidavit also referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the regulations framed by the MCI to give effect to the object of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 are mandatory in nature and required to be followed without any deviation or departure. Interestingly, apart from placing its own version in the counter affidavit, the MCI did not specifically deal with the pleadings and as such no light was shed by it as to whether candidates, securing lesser marks than the appellants in the AIPMT-2014, were left undisturbed, as alleged. N. The writ petitions were enlisted for final hearing on July 11, 2018 before the learned Judge. His Lordship formed the impression that the appellants had not been successful in obtaining 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2). This was obviously a mistake, for it was the case of the MCI itself that the appellants had failed to obtain 50% marks in the AIPMT-2014 and were, therefore, ineligible to take admission in the MBBS course. Although the mistake might seem to be innocuous, a reading of the judgment rendered by the learned Judge impels us to hold that the perceived failure of the appellants to obtain minimum 50% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) did weigh in His Lordship’s mind; or else, how does one explain the absence of a remote reference in the impugned judgment to the deficiency of the appellants in securing the qualifying marks of 50% in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together at the AIPMT-2014, which was the cause of their downfall. Nowadays, in view of the ever-increasing demand for seats in the MBBS course and the fierce competition amongst the aspirants, obviously a student having failed to obtain even 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) cannot ever aspire to be a doctor (admission through the backdoor excepted); and, any person of reasonable prudence would reject such candidate’s aspiration as far-fetched. We hold the view that this factor, i.e., the impression formed by the learned Judge that the appellants had failed to secure 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2), did certainly influence His Lordship to dismiss the writ petitions, considering His Lordship’s observations made in the judgment that the appellants should have been aware of the minimum qualifying marks before seeking admission in the MBBS course, that the appellants were admitted possibly for collateral purposes and that His Lordship would have imposed costs but for the sole consideration that they are students. These do suggest a disturbed mind suspecting foul play at some level which might have enabled the appellants to secure admissions in the said college. We may note one other aspect considered by the learned Judge, i.e., cancellation of admission of the appellants being ab initio void, question of civil consequences did not arise and that they cannot claim (negative) equality by citing Article 14 of the Constitution. O. It is the dismissal of the writ petitions that have left the appellants thoroughly aggrieved and highly dissatisfied. It is obvious that appellants, who have been successful in crossing one hurdle after another while pursuing the MBBS course and are asked to call it a day in the midst of the final year, would be terribly distressed and make every attempt to ensure that their career prospects are not jeopardized. They are thus before us praying for ameliorative relief in exercise of our appellate powers. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has advanced submissions touching upon these elements of human sensitivity and has appealed to us to save them from being drowned in utter despair and frustration. He has also urged that regard being had to the fact that the appellants hail from families of settlers and the conditions prevailing in the said UT not at all comparable with the facilities available in the mainland of the country, the appellants deserve the Court’s benevolence. After all there are not too many doctors in the said UT and having regard to the fact that the appellants, if at all they become doctors, have to spend the first few years to serve the people of the UT, the Court may decide in their favour particularly bearing in mind the fact that they are not to be blamed for the impasse in which they find themselves now. 4. Mr. Sougata Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the MCI and its assistant secretary (respondents 3 and 4), referred to the 1997 Regulations as well as several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein caution has been sounded time and again against admissions being made in violation of the regulations of the MCI. According to him, after all it is the life of a patient which would be at risk if under-qualified students get admitted through the back door in medical courses, and somehow graduate which would ultimately pose a danger to human life and its safety. It was also submitted by him that the 1997 Regulations framed by the MCI being mandatory, neither the Director (ME) nor the Under Secretary, both attached to the concerned ministry, could have issued any direction which is not in conformity therewith; therefore, the stand of the Department of Education of the said UT that the appellants were admitted merely based on the marks of the AIPMT-2014 without, however, considering that they did not secure the minimum qualifying marks of 50%, ought not to be accepted. 5. Mr. Bhattacharya further referred to the Information Bulletin for the AIPMT-2014, conducted by the CBSE and submitted that every student taking such test were made aware of the requirement to obtain 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together to be entitled to admission in the MBBS course. Our attention was invited to paragraph 15(i) of such Information Bulletin which is to the following effect: “15. MERIT LIST AND QUALIFYING CRITERIA (i) The Central Board of Secondary Education will prepare the list of successful candidates of AIPMT 2014 on the basis of the eligibility criteria provided by the Medical Council of India as given in Graduate Medical Education Regulations-1997 issued under All India Medical Council Act1956. The eligibility criteria is as follows: under clause (2) to (4) of MCI’s regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4 and in addition must have come in the merit list prepared as a result of such competitive Entrance Test by securing not less that 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology taken together in the competitive examination. In respect of the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC category the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology taken in qualifying examination and competitive examination (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) be 40% marks instead of 50% for General Candidates. Further, for persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs, the minimum of 45% marks for Gen-PH and 40% marks for SC-PH/ST-PH/OBC-PH are required. Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive Entrance Test and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be admitted to the course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria under Regulation (4). A list of the successful candidates in order of merit based on the score obtained in the examination will be prepared by the Board and forwarded to the counselling authorities for the purpose of allotment of seats.***” It was, therefore, contended that the appellants must be presumed to be aware of the minimum qualifications required for admission in the MBBS course and not having such qualification, should not have aspired to become doctors. 6. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the decision of the MCI does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petitions. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 7. Mr. Tewari, learned advocate for the appearing for the Union of India and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (respondents 1 and 2) contended that the administration of the said UT committed an error in misreading and misunderstanding the letters dated February 27, 2014 and September 2, 2014 issued from the concerned ministry. According to him, such letters were required to be read in addition to the regulations framed by the MCI and for the error committed by the administration of the said UT, the ministry should not be blamed. He too prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the administration of the said UT and its Chief Secretary (the proforma respondents) expressed his inability to assist us on the ground that he was yet to receive the papers. He too prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the administration of the said UT and its Chief Secretary (the proforma respondents) expressed his inability to assist us on the ground that he was yet to receive the papers. However, having regard to the debate that ensued in the Court and listening to the arguments advanced by the learned advocates representing the respective parties, he submitted that he had to stand by the acts/decisions of the administration and left the matter to our discretion. 9. The respective parties have been heard at length. The principal of the said college did not appear before the learned Judge. There has been no appearance from his side before us too. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid narrative of facts as well as the address of the learned advocates for the respective parties, we proceed to decide the fate of the appellants based on our understanding of the factual as well as the legal position. 11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the AIPMT-2014 was conducted by the CBSE by setting 180 questions carrying 4 marks each, i.e., full marks of 720, and that a student belonging to general or open category, in order to be qualified for admission in the MBBS course, was required to secure a minimum of 360 marks. It is also not in dispute that Ananya and Nikita secured 347 and 349 marks, respectively; therefore, they fell marginally short of the qualifying marks. The 1997 Regulations of the MCI in clear terms lay down that a student has to obtain 50% marks in the competitive entrance examination. Adhering to such regulations, without anything more, would definitely spell dooms day for the appellants. 12. However, what we find from the letter dated February 27, 2014 of the Director (ME) is, if the entrance test be not conducted by the beneficiary State/UT/Government Department selection will be made on the basis of marks obtained by the students in the AIPMT conducted by the CBSE and in no circumstances shall selection of students be made merely on academic merit of 10+2 marks (underlining is ours for emphasis). The Department of Education of the said UT, in the letters dated December 4 and 9, 2016 and January 28, 2016, was right in pointing out that the Director (ME) had not referred to the stipulation of 50% marks being required to be obtained by a candidate in the competitive entrance examination conducted by the CBSE for admission to the MBBS course. There was, indeed, no indication either that admission could be made without a student securing qualifying marks of 50%, as pleaded by the MCI in its counter affidavit to the writ petition. What appears to be striking from the letter dated February 27, 2014 of the Director (ME) is the warning given that the selection of the students under no circumstances should be made on the basis of the marks obtained at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2). While reiterating the contents of the letter dated February 27, 2014, in his letter dated September 2, 2014, the Under Secretary went a step further. Paragraph 8 of the letter dated September 2, 2014, quoted (supra) and highlighted in bold font, would reveal that the States/UTs were advised to nominate their candidates on the basis of merit system devised by them keeping in view the guidelines given in paragraphs 1 to 7. It seems to be clear to us that apart from what the MCI required by framing its regulations, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare allowed the States/UTs to nominate their candidates on the basis of a merit system devised by them. This particular observation in the letter dated September 2, 2014 of the Under Secretary gives an indication of a liberty being granted to the said UT to nominate students for admission based on the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 thereof, which included the Director’s letter dated February 27, 2014, and the same, as noticed above, does not indicate that only those students obtaining 50% marks in the AIPMT-2014 can be admitted. The letters dated December 4, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 28, 2016 of the Department of Education of the administration of the said UT are consistent in the sense that they convey nomination of names of candidates by the administration without insisting for obtention of 50% marks at the competitive entrance examination and nominations were reportedly made considering the relative merits of the students who might have expressed desire to have such nomination, i.e., their inter-se ranks in such competitive entrance examination. 13. That the requirement of the statutory regulations could not have been by-passed by the officers attached to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, is not an issue. The letter dated February 27, 2014 could have been in more clear language, and specific on the requirement to adhere to the 1997 Regulations. Bungling at the end of the ministry in regard to admission to MBBS course from the Central Pool quota is clear as crystal, which was not noticed by the Department of Education, and breach of the 1997 Regulations ensued in nominating the appellants. There is, however, no evidence before us to suggest that there has been some foul play in the process of nominations, but definitely the officers of the ministry and the Education Department of the administration would have done well to find out what the essential requirements are which a candidate aspiring for admission in the MBBS course as an islander is required to satisfy. If at all a clarification was sought for prior to nominating the candidates for admission, perhaps, this sort of a situation could have been avoided. There has been a slip, whoever might be responsible. 14. We are not sure but it could also be true, as alleged by the appellants, that even in the past students were nominated by the administration of the said UT without insisting on the requirement of students securing the qualifying marks of 50% and this went unchecked at the end of the MCI as well as the concerned ministry. As it appears from the letters of the Department of Education, adopting the previous years’ practice candidates were selected not on the basis of the marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) but bearing in mind the rank at the competitive entrance examination (without insisting on the requirement to obtain 50% qualifying marks) and nominations were accordingly made. As it appears from the letters of the Department of Education, adopting the previous years’ practice candidates were selected not on the basis of the marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) but bearing in mind the rank at the competitive entrance examination (without insisting on the requirement to obtain 50% qualifying marks) and nominations were accordingly made. What has made matters worse is that the allegation of the appellants of other nominated candidates securing fewer marks than 50% at the competitive entrance examination and securing admissions in like manner, which have not been cancelled by the MCI, is not dealt with in its counter affidavit by MCI. The possibility of other ineligible candidates being nominated by the administration of the said UT for admission in the same session or previous sessions without such students having obtained 50% qualifying marks in the competitive entrance examination and non-cancellation of their admission by the MCI, might have resulted in the appellants being nominated following the practice of the previous years. It is not as if this point is being referred to for acceptance of the contention that the appellants have been singled out, thereby subjecting them to hostile discrimination violative of Article 14, but only to emphasize that there seems to be room to cause an extensive investigation for unearthing the truth behind the nominations that were presently as well as previously made. 15. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the appellants should be allowed to complete their MBBS course may have to be considered from a different perspective altogether. Since the appellants belong to category III-B, it would stand to reason that they are descendants of people having settled in the said UT post-independence of the country. By reason of our experience as Judges presiding over the Circuit Bench of the “High Court at Calcutta”, at Port Blair, it would not be an exercise lacking in prudence to take judicial notice of certain facts. 16. We would justify our approach, at the outset, by referring to an authority. In Onkar Nath v. Delhi Administration : (1977) 2 SCC 611 , the Supreme Court was considering whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on May 8, 1974. In Onkar Nath v. Delhi Administration : (1977) 2 SCC 611 , the Supreme Court was considering whether the courts below were justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike was in fact launched on May 8, 1974. It was held in paragraph 6 as follows: “6. *** Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Section 57 enumerates facts of which the Court ‘shall’ take judicial notice and states that on all matters of public history, literature, science or art the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. The list of facts mentioned in Section 57 of which the Court can take judicial notice is not exhaustive and indeed the purpose of the section is to provide that the Court shall take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of which the Court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. Recognition of facts without formal proof is a matter of expediency and no one has ever questioned the need and wisdom of accepting the existence of matters which are unquestionably within public knowledge. (See Taylor, 11th Edn., pp. 3-12; Wigmore, Section 2571, footnote; Stephen’s Digest, notes to Article 58; Whitley Stokes’ Anglo-Indian Codes, Vol. II, p. 887.) Shutting the judicial eye to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to commonsense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wasteful ritual. No court therefore insists on formal proof, by evidence, of notorious facts of history, past or present. The date of poll, the passing away of a man of eminence and events that have rocked the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof.***” (words in italics in original) Based on the above reasoning, the Court answered the issue before it in the affirmative. 17. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof.***” (words in italics in original) Based on the above reasoning, the Court answered the issue before it in the affirmative. 17. Although the administration of the said UT, with the active assistance and co-operation of the Central Government, have been striving hard through special programmes/schemes and by setting up schools/education centres at various places of the said UT to ensure that illiteracy in the said UT is eradicated and that islander students receive quality education, there is an urgent and real need of uplifting the standard of education imparted to them so that such standard is comparable with the standards of education in schools in the mainland. This we say, without meaning any disrespect to the members of the teaching and non-teaching staff of such schools/education centres and its administrators who, by their untiring efforts, have been trying to turn the tide around. We hope and trust that the students studying in a school set up by the administration or any private school in the said UT would in the near future succeed in matching the students of the mainland in every walk of life, thereby completely obliterating the backwardness of the said UT at least in the educational field. However, there cannot be any gainsaying that the facilities on offer in the said UT for the benefit of the general students, who have been born and brought up in the said UT, may not even match the level of benefits offered to students even belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes category in the mainland, not to speak of general candidates. Every student must be inculcated with the thought that chasing excellence would benefit them more in future rather than chasing success. To be specific, we may refer to the revolution in the technological field brought about by the “internet”. Introduction of the “internet”, a globally connected network system providing a variety of information and communication facilities, has made a world of difference in the lives of citizens of the country over the past decade or more. For a student, the internet has become an important tool to enhance knowledge apart from deriving knowledge by reading books and being taught in schools. For a student, the internet has become an important tool to enhance knowledge apart from deriving knowledge by reading books and being taught in schools. Inter alia, the search engine “Google” is now a household feature enabling one, in search of information, to have it from a variety of websites. Books, articles, journals, magazines, dictionaries, translations, archives, videos, pictures, maps, etc. give just the answer to anything that may not be readily available to a student even after delving deep in hardcopy books, articles, journals, reports, etc. The situation is such that a student, who does not wish to attend school regularly, may derive sufficient knowledge by surfing the internet and thereby increase his depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, not to speak of the times when the appellants had taken the AIPMT-2014 but even in the present days, the benefits of such technological advancement have not reached the inhabitants of the said UT even in fair and reasonable measure. Internet connectivity being a real big problem for all sections of the people in the said UT, its inhabitants have really not been able to reap the fruits of technological advancements that have been made over the years due to poor internet connectivity. This might have stultified the efforts of the islander students to expand their knowledge level and is definitely an important factor that ought to weigh in the minds of right thinking people, if the Constitutional goals are to be achieved. 18. The Constitution in Article 15(4) enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of citizens. With changing times, we find that there are classes of people who can be categorized as educationally backward because of the Government’s inability (without doubting the intentions) to reach to them the benefits of the technological revolution. 19. While the validity of the provisions in the 1997 Regulations is not in question, in an appropriate case (like these), it may require consideration of the policy makers to ponder and decide as to whether fixing identical qualifying marks of 50% for general candidates who are residents of the mainland, and general candidates who are residents of the said UT, should be kept at par or needs to be scaled down a bit. True it is, that the backwardness of the said UT is off-set by providing the Central Pool seats, which in itself is a recognition of backwardness and allowed the appellants to secure admission, but some of such seats are reserved for other classes too. We find from paragraph 15 of the Information Bulletin that the qualifying marks in the competitive entrance examination are 40% and 50% for candidates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC and the general candidates, respectively. The thrust of Mr. Bhattacharya’s contention is that once an eligibility criteria has been fixed for admission in the MBBS course and a candidate aspiring to become a doctor does not satisfy the criteria, it would be dangerous to allow such candidate to pursue the course and become a doctor to treat patients despite the ineligibility (hinting that the appellants had not obtained 50% marks in the AIPMT-2014). No doubt, doctors have an onerous task to perform. In a life and death case for a patient, he/she or his family members would obviously expect to be treated by a duly qualified doctor. It is axiomatic that any wrong advice or treatment has the potential of putting the patient’s life in serious jeopardy, and may in an unfortunate case end his/her life too. However, would this argument not apply to the candidates for whom lower qualifying marks are fixed? Without doubting the wisdom of the policy makers and the legislators and questioning the Constitutional philosophy of enabling the State to make special provisions for the upliftment of the socially, economically and educationally backward classes, Mr. Bhattacharya’s argument appears to us to be self-defeating. 20. By educationally backward classes, in the context, ought not to mean the class of persons who comprise the members of the SC/ST/OBC only, but given the situation in the country, may also include the vast majority of its populace who, despite being general candidates, are deprived of quality education having regard to what is offered by the State in the discharge of its Constitutional obligations. The economic backwardness of an area, which also complements social and educational backwardness, cannot be kept away from consideration. The economic backwardness of an area, which also complements social and educational backwardness, cannot be kept away from consideration. Students who owe their origin to a section whose educational interests are far from what is desirable, as in the case of the settlers in the said UT, may not be unreasonable in nurturing a grouse that if the qualifying marks could be reduced by 10% for students belonging to the SC/ST/OBC category owing their origin to the mainland, and they could be considered eligible for admission in the MBBS course without being overtly concerned about the health of patients to whom they would attend, should a marginal deviation not be permitted in respect of the islander students who have been born and brought up in the said UT, for their advancement, and particularly when they (the appellants) have advanced thus far in pursuing the MBBS course? These are questions which need to be addressed by the policy makers at the earliest to set things right. 21. Even otherwise, for the present, one cannot at the same time be oblivious of the provisions of Article 15(3), Article 46 and Article 47 of the Constitution. It is of some significance that Article 15(3), a fundamental right, enables the State to make special provisions for, inter alia, women. Article 46 is a mandate on the State to promote, with special care, the educational and economic standards of the weaker sections of the people whereas Article 47 ordains that raising of the standard of living of the people and the improvement of public health are primary duties of the State. True it is that Articles 46 and 47 are not enforceable in a Court of law but that does not detract from the obligation of the State to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy for the welfare of the people of the nation, which is the cherished goal. After all, each and every legislation must be framed in a manner so that the same are directed to cater to the needs and interests of the people and any interpretation of a statute, which would not further the ultimate goal of securing to the people of the nation - in terms of the preambular promise - justice, has to be eschewed. 22. 22. We have found from the clarificatory letter issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated June 10, 2015 that for the academic year 2014-15, relaxation in the prescribed qualifying marks in the competitive examination has not been granted for any category of students including Central Pool quota students. This is sufficient enough indication that the ministry, in appropriate cases, may have relaxed the prescribed qualifying marks in previous years without granting any relaxation in the year 2014-15. 23. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gopal D. Tirthani : (2003) 7 SCC 83 where it had the occasion to observe in paragraph 25 as follows: “25. The eligibility test, called the entrance test or the pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes. Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate whether he would be able to prosecute postgraduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital significance at the counselling when it comes to allotting the successful candidates to different disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are considered to be more creamy and are more coveted than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go-by. If at all there can be departure that has to be minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the field of medical education, which for the present are available as a body in the Medical Council of India.” 24. Although in the said decision the Court was dealing with admission to postgraduate medical courses, the observations in paragraph 25 (supra) do seem to be of relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The knowledge and intelligence of the appellants have been assessed upon their participation in the AIPMT-2014. The appellants failed to secure the qualifying marks of 360 by 13 and 11 marks, respectively. The knowledge and intelligence of the appellants have been assessed upon their participation in the AIPMT-2014. The appellants failed to secure the qualifying marks of 360 by 13 and 11 marks, respectively. They, therefore, narrowly missed the qualifying marks but it stands to logic that having obtained more than 48% marks, they are reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent who could have, as of right, claimed admission in the MBBS course, subject to availability of vacancy and on the basis of assessment of their merit if only both of them had secured at least 13 more marks. It is also not the case here that any student, having obtained more marks than the appellants, has been deprived to pave the way for their admission. The objects for which an entrance examination is conducted, more or less stand satisfied qua the appellants. To our mind, the Supreme Court has made a very significant observation in the last sentence of paragraph 25. A minimal departure is permissible, if approved by the MCI. Taking a cue therefrom, we observe that the requirement of securing 50% qualifying marks in the AIPMT-2014 could be departed from by admitting students hailing from the said UT who fall short of the minimum marks by only a few marks. That would not be a major departure but a minor departure, which could be allowed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare upon obtaining approval from the MCI in line with Articles 15(3), 46 and 47 without, however, depriving any other student who might have secured more marks than the appellants. 25. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances that have surfaced, we wish to take note of certain other features. It is the law that none can obtain registration as a doctor unless he/she qualifies in the MBBS final year examination. There are instances aplenty when candidates after having secured marks in excess of the qualifying marks in the competitive entrance examination and attaining eligibility secure admission in the MBBS course, but for diverse reasons (which we need not discuss here) are forced to pull out from the course before completion. Notwithstanding their academic brilliance prior to taking admission in the MBBS course, their dreams are shattered. Here, of course, we are dealing with the claims of two students who as a result of their perseverance have reached the concluding part of their MBBS course of study. Notwithstanding their academic brilliance prior to taking admission in the MBBS course, their dreams are shattered. Here, of course, we are dealing with the claims of two students who as a result of their perseverance have reached the concluding part of their MBBS course of study. Although they had not secured 50% marks at the competitive entrance examination, the appellants have acquitted themselves creditably by succeeding from time to time in the several semester-end examinations conducted by the university to which the said college is affiliated. They can aspire to become doctors only if they have successfully completed the MBBS course of study, and not otherwise. It is, therefore, necessary that their performances as medical students are also assessed to ascertain their suitability to be registered as doctors. We cannot exclude from our consideration the level of health care that is provided to the islanders and the dearth of doctors in the said UT. Instances of patients being shifted to Chennai and Kolkata for treatment from Port-Blair are not rare. It would, thus, be only just and fair if on a pragmatic consideration of all the factors as highlighted above, a decision is taken that would not only be beneficial for the ailing islanders in need of medical support but also those who, having the occasion to visit the said UT from the mainland, require medical treatment, and thereby advance public interest as well as further the interests of the individual students. 26. The pros and cons have, thus, to be properly balanced. It cannot be ignored that if in the ultimate analysis the appellants are held not entitled to complete the MBBS course, not only would two precious medical seats go waste, but the expenses incurred so far by the State for proper medical education of the appellants would go down the drain. To rigidly adhere to the letter of the law and not respect its spirit, could be counter productive to the interest of the nation as a whole in given cases. It must be remembered by all concerned that justice is a virtue, which transcends all barriers and that technical considerations cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. 27. To rigidly adhere to the letter of the law and not respect its spirit, could be counter productive to the interest of the nation as a whole in given cases. It must be remembered by all concerned that justice is a virtue, which transcends all barriers and that technical considerations cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. 27. We are of the considered opinion that the claims of the appellants, particularly when the order of cancellation of their admission has been made by the MCI without hearing them, ought to be revisited by the ministry upon consultation with the MCI and obviously after giving the appellants as well as the administration of the said UT reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. Having regard to the circumstances leading to cancellation of the admissions of the appellants and the situation prevailing in the said UT, which we have discussed above, dismissal of the writ petitions without even accepting the plea of brazen violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits, is the caution sounded by the Supreme Court in its decision in Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division : (2004) 4 SCC 281 . But on facts and in the circumstances, we have no doubt that a proper hearing and due application of mind by all concerned to what we have observed could bring about positive results for the appellants and the learned Judge was in error in not interfering with the decision making process based on the ground that the admissions being void ab initio, the audi alteram partem rule did not apply. 28. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The decision of the MCI dated November 18, 2015 too stands set aside. As a consequence thereof, the letter of the principal of the said college dated December 1, 2015 cannot independently sustain and accordingly, also stands set aside. The appellants shall be permitted to pursue the MBBS course in the said college but their final results shall not be published till such time as indicated hereafter. 29. As a consequence thereof, the letter of the principal of the said college dated December 1, 2015 cannot independently sustain and accordingly, also stands set aside. The appellants shall be permitted to pursue the MBBS course in the said college but their final results shall not be published till such time as indicated hereafter. 29. We consider it appropriate to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, to consider the issue of granting relaxation to the appellants in the light of the observations made hereinabove and that the appellants have reached a stage very close to their dreams of becoming doctors, as early as possible but preferably within 8 weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. Obviously, the appellants shall be granted opportunity of hearing. The representative of the administration of the said UT shall also be requested to appear and place its version. The Secretary shall obtain the views of the MCI, but prior to consideration of the same, copies of such views must be provided to the appellants. 30. We have found from the affidavit of the council filed before the learned Judge the following pleading: “***Any admission to MBBS course in contravention to the minimum requirements as stipulated in the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997, is not a valid admission and cannot be recognized.” While considering the claims of the appellants the appropriate authority in the ministry shall request the MCI to look into the allegations of the appellants that candidates nominated by the administration of the said UT having secured lesser marks than them in the competitive entrance examination, have been continuing to pursue the MBBS course of study in the colleges where they have been allotted, unscathed. If, indeed, ensuring proper health care to the public of this country is the guiding factor, registration as a doctor should not be granted to anyone who has pursued MBBS course of study without being eligible for such admission. We do hope and trust that appropriate information would be made available by the MCI in respect of the allegations of the appellants. We do hope and trust that appropriate information would be made available by the MCI in respect of the allegations of the appellants. If any student of the relevant session or of previous sessions did not secure 50% qualifying marks in the competitive entrance examination for admission to the MBBS course, yet, has been allowed to pursue/complete the course, it is for the MCI to explain why similar appropriate action was not taken in line with the action taken against the appellants. If any student who has obtained lesser marks than the appellants is lawfully entitled to claim the benefit of reservation, the same shall also be clearly indicated so as to allay their grievances relating to discrimination. Should satisfactory explanation, however, be not forthcoming, the Secretary may draw appropriate inference and give his decision. 31. We make it clear that if the decision of the Secretary is adverse to the interest of the appellants, the same shall not be given effect till two weeks after communication thereof to them. Needless to observe, in such eventuality, a reasoned decision shall be given by the Secretary. 32. In the event of a favourable decision being taken by the Secretary in terms of this order, the embargo in respect of publication of results of the appellants shall stand lifted. 33. The appeals and the connected applications, accordingly, stand disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs. Photocopy of this judgment and order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of MAT 744 of 2018.