Backdoor entry: SC junks plea challenging Medical Council order cancelling MBBS admission

In the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner students had put reliance upon the order in the case of Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., where the top court bench had considered the fact that the students were not at fault and set aside the order of MCI. However, the HC bench had not considered this argument as the top court had clarified in that order that the judgment shall not constitute a precedent.

Following the HC order, these students approached the Supreme Court seeking relief. As per the latest media report by Live Law, the counsel for the petitioner students, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul submitted before the Court on Monday that the concerned students were NEET qualified and they had not been admitted outside the counselling process. He also stressed upon the fact that the admission had not been granted on the basis of college counselling but these students had participated in the Central Counselling.

He argued that admission had been granted to these students only when the vacancies had not been filled up by the State till the end. Besides, the counsel for the students also submitted that the petitioner students have already completed 4.5 years of medical education in the concerned college.

"They have done about 4.5 years. They want to know in what direction their life is heading. In our case, factually, the Central Counselling took place; these students are NEET qualified and on the last date there were 5 vacancies," submitted the counsel. Referring to the fact that similar situated students had been given relief by the NMC, the counsel for the students submitted, "5 identically situated students in some other medical college were discharged by the MCI. When in an identical situation you have absolved others…"

He argued that the Apex medical commission, NMC did not explain the reasons for treating similarly situated students in a different manner, when the law required that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to similar and equal treatment.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the concerned medical college, Mr. Dhruv Mehta submitted that there were 5 vacancies at the end of the counselling and taking note of the fact that the court had suggested not to leave any seats vacant, the college had approached the Directorate of Medical Education (DME). However, no response had been received by the college and therefore, the students had been enrolled.

In this context, the counsel for the students, Mr. Kaul also submitted that up until 4th counselling, the concerned college only followed the common merit list and the common counselling as directed by the top court. After the completion of the four rounds, there were 127 seats and DME sent a list of 125 candidates. At that point, there were two vacancies and on the last date, 3 more students opted out, leaving altogether 5 vacancies behind. Thereafter, the college had written to the DME about the vacancies and even had asked the DME for suggesting the names of candidates. The petitioner students had been admitted since DME did not respond.

After taking note of the submissions, the top court bench comprising of Justice Chandrachud questioned, "How much have you paid to the college?"

When the counsel for the students submitted that the statutory fee is 7-8 lakhs/year, the top court bench noted, "Mr. Mehta, would you be willing to pay a penalty of Rs. 1 crore per student in order to regularise them."

Responding to this, the counsel for the college, Mr. Mehta submitted, "I will have to seek instructions, Rs. 1 crore is a very large amount."

Meanwhile. Justice Chandrachud opined, "This is not straight (admission) at all."

On the other hand, the counsel for NMC, Mr. Sharma contended that the admissions had not been made on the last date, but much later, in September. He also referred to the fact that in the top court order in the case of Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., which the petitioner students were relying upon, had an interim order permitting the students to continue with the course.

He emphasised on the fact that in the present case, the petitioner students and the college were sitting idly for around 5 years. Further, it was argued by the NMC counsel that the top court had earlier clarified in several judgments that no sympathy is to be shown to petitioners, especially when they approach the court with unclean hands.

Agreeing with his submission, the Supreme Court bench noted, "Everybody sat quietly for 5 years. The cancellation was in 2016 and you waited till 2018 and then filed Writ petition."

Although the counsel for the students claimed that the petitioner students had sought legal remedy within 3 months of intimation of the cancellation, the bench dismissed the plea as it noted, "We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution."

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-nmc-188467.pdf

Also Read: Backdoor entry in medical colleges should stop: High Court