Madras HC slams CENTAC in PG Medical Seat Scam, Orders Pondy Govt, medical colleges to pay Rs 15 Lakh each to 16 doctors

A division bench of Justices R Subramanian and R Kalaimathi was dealing with batch of writ appeals filed by Post Graduate Medical (PG Medical) students and the concerned medical colleges in response to their dissatisfaction with the order issued by the writ court on October 7, 2020, in connection with various writ petitions. The primary contention in the writ petitions revolved around the decisions made by the National Medical Commission (NMC), formerly known as Medical Council of India to discharge 34 Post Graduate medical students on different dates but under similar circumstances. The grounds for these discharges were rooted in the fact that the students were neither sponsored by the Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC), Puducherry, nor had they applied for admission through CENTAC. Despite the challenge mounted against these decisions, the writ court upheld the orders of discharge, prompting the students and the institutions involved to file these appeals seeking a reconsideration of the court's decision.

Background:

The background of the case revolved around the introduction of the National Level Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for Post Graduate Medical Admission by the Government of India in 2017. The Supreme Court intervened to establish guidelines for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses. In an order dated 04.05.2017, it directed common counseling for deemed universities, specifying the role of state governments, admission committees, and fee deposition. Later, in Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust vs. Medical Council of India, the Supreme Court affirmed common counseling for all India quota seats and state quota seats, providing detailed procedures. Despite these directives, issues arose in Puducherry regarding fee fixation, admission irregularities, and subsequent discharge of candidates. Writ petitions were filed challenging the admissions, including those by CENTAC-sponsored candidates. The court issued interim orders and clarifications, while the dispute over fee fixation reached the Supreme Court. The core question in the present appeals pertained to the validity of the National Medical Commission's orders discharging candidates based on their non-sponsorship by CENTAC.

Complaints arose regarding irregular admissions in at least six out of seven institutes in the Puducherry region. The NMC, in response to these complaints, issued a notice to the concerned colleges and subsequently discharged students from various colleges. The reasons for discharge were largely similar in all cases. The CENTAC filed a report detailing the admission process for Post Graduate medical seats, shedding light on the happenings during counseling.

As per the report submitted by CENTAC, in the 2017-18 academic year, the committee, bound by the responsibility to admit candidates based on NEET merit within their respective categories, obtained seat allocations from the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Puducherry. The application status for various seat categories, including MD/MS for the State Quota, MD/MS for the All India Quota, PG Dental seats, and PG Dental seats under the All India General Category, was delineated. The preparation of NEET-PG merit lists for Puducherry and All India Quota candidates involved thorough verification of relevant documents. Additionally, the formulation of the seat matrix adhered to the Roster system, following the instructions of the Health Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, to ensure compliance with reservation policies.

The report further detailed the first and second rounds of counseling, highlighting issues such as fee structure disputes and the impact of a Supreme Court order regarding admissions to Deemed Universities. The process involved meticulous steps, including verification of documents, preparation of merit lists, and adherence to reservation policies.

The report also mentioned a mop-up round of counseling initiated by the Health Department to fill vacant seats and adjustments made based on revised percentile cutoffs. Despite these efforts, a significant number of government quota seats remained vacant after the counseling rounds.

Legal Arguments:

The subsequent court proceedings revealed that the admissions made during this process were found to be in violation of Regulation 9-A, and the institutions were accused of manipulating numbers to create vacancies. The NMC discharged students admitted in what was deemed an illegal manner.

The court examined three categories of candidates involved in the irregular admissions, including total foreigners, candidates allotted to one institution but admitted to another, and candidates admitted to disciplines or courses different from their allotment.

The court found that the admissions were conducted in complete disregard of regulations, and the discharge orders issued by the NMC were upheld. The judgment also emphasized that institutions cannot admit candidates unilaterally without CENTAC sponsorship, and admissions without proper allotment orders from CENTAC are deemed illegal.

The legal proceedings involved a judgment concerning students who were denied admission and subsequently appealed. The presiding judge acknowledged the illegality of denying admissions to the students but determined that they could not be permitted to join in subsequent years. Instead, the judge imposed penalties on the colleges, mandating them to pay costs to the Cancer Institute at Adyar, Chennai. Dissatisfied with the rejection of their claim for damages due to the unlawful denial of admission, 15 out of the 28 students filed an appeal (W.A.No.1438 of 2021).

The court session included presentations by various legal counsels representing different parties. L. Swaminathan argued on behalf of the appellants in W.A.Nos.835 to 839, 841, and 843 of 2021. V. Karthic, Senior Counsel for L. Swaminathan, represented the appellants in W.A.Nos.844 to 846, 849 to 853, 857, 861, 863, 864, 869, 870, 871, and 873 of 2021. Further arguments were presented by Vijay Narayan, assisted by L. Swaminathan, for the appellants in W.A.Nos.881, 882, 884 to 892 of 2021, and other counsels representing various appellants in the case.

The debate revolved around the contention that certain orders favoring the institutions were issued by a Division Bench of the Court, but these were challenged in the Supreme Court by the NMC through Special Leave Petitions. The matter was considered sub judice, and the appellants could not rely on those orders.

Additionally, the appellants argued that the confusion in the admission process was exacerbated by the first-year implementation of common counseling for postgraduate medical courses. They highlighted delays in fee fixation and revisions, which contributed to the overall confusion. The appellants also emphasized a press note from CENTAC on May 30, 2017, inviting candidates to participate in counseling on May 31, 2017, as a basis for their actions.

The counsel for the appellants pointed to a communication dated May 31, 2017, issued by the Under Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Puducherry, directing the colleges to admit students against vacant seats from a list forwarded by CENTAC. The appellants believed they were authorized to admit students based on this communication.

On the contrary, the Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) argued that only students provisionally allotted by CENTAC should have been admitted, and the institutions were not authorized to admit students on their own. There were allegations of suppression of information against the institutions for not reporting the denial of admission to certain candidates.

In conclusion, the appellants sought compensation for the alleged illegal denial of admission, relying on past judgments. The legal representatives of the Medical Council of India (MCI) contended that the admissions made by the colleges were in violation of Rule 9-A of the Post Graduate Regulations and could not be regularized. They cited relevant Supreme Court decisions to support their position, wherein one of the orders held that sympathy cannot be a ground to regularize such illegalities

The Court's Observations and Decisions:

The court considered the arguments presented by the parties in the case. Three main questions were identified for determination in the appeals. The first question revolved around whether a Private Medical Institution had the right to admit a student after the introduction of Regulation 9-A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation, even if the student had qualified in the National Level Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). The second question delved into whether, in light of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in specific cases, the court could approve the action of colleges admitting students in violation of Regulation 9-A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation. The third and final question addressed whether the students nominated by CENTAC (Centralized Admission Committee) and denied admission were entitled to compensation, and if so, the quantum of compensation and who should bear the responsibility for it.

The court reviewed records, and regarding the first two questions, emphasized the confusion during the first year of common counseling for admissions to Post Graduate medical courses. The introduction of Regulation 9-A on March 10, 2017, and subsequent Supreme Court orders added complexity. While there was a dispute regarding the procedure for Deemed to be Universities, as of May 31, 2017, Regulation 9-A, the Supreme Court's order on Education Promotion Society of India, and the order on Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust governed the admission procedure through common counseling.

The court discussed various communications, particularly one issued by the Under Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Puducherry, on May 31, 2017. This communication, considered illegal, directed the colleges to admit students who had qualified in the NEET. The court highlighted that this communication could not legalize the illegal admissions made by the colleges, and students' success in examinations should not justify the violation of regulations and court orders.

In conclusion, the court expressed its agreement with the learned Single Judge's decision that the communication from the Under Secretary cannot legalize illegal admissions, emphasizing that admissions made in violation of regulations and court orders cannot be justified.

The court observed a deliberate and comprehensive plan by the medical colleges, working closely with officials from the Government of Puducherry and CENTAC. This collaboration aimed to navigate the regulations imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its endeavor to regulate admissions to medical courses. The court emphasized the Supreme Court's vigilant monitoring of medical education, with a focus on ensuring merit-based admissions. It observed;

"we find a design and a comprehensive master plan evolved by these Colleges in active collaboration with the officials of the Government of Puducherry and CENTAC to maneuver all check points put up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its effort to regulate admissions to Medical Courses. As rightly pointed out by Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in the prelude in paragraph 27 of the judgment under Appeal, Medical Education is being monitored very closely by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been making humongous efforts to ensure that merit and merit alone is made the basis for Medical Admissions, particularly Post Graduate Medical Admissions."

Rejecting the argument that vacant seats and infrastructure would go to waste, the court asserted that preserving merit in medical admissions is crucial, considering the profession's impact on people's lives. The court acknowledged that the appellants had completed their post-graduation due to interim orders from the court, provided they refrained from claiming equity in case of failure in the writ petitions. However, the court rejected the idea of compromising on merit and deemed the admission of discharged candidates as illegal. It noted;

"The argument that the seats will go waste and the infrastructure that is created would go waste cannot at all be accepted, since its better that the seat goes waste instead of a non-meritorious candidate taking it for consideration. After all Medical Profession deals with life of people and any compromise on merit would have a delirious effect. No doubt, all these discharged students viz., the appellants before us have completed their Post Graduation, thanks to the interim orders passed by this Court, of course on their filing an affidavit that they would not claim equity, if they are to fail in the Writ petitions. The Institutes as well as the students now seek to invoke sympathy factor to contend that once the meritorious students, who have denied the seats, are compensated their qualification can be recognised by setting aside the discharge orders."

It added;

"We are afraid that such a compromise would be putting a premium on illegality. There is no shade of a doubt in our mind that the admission of all these discharged candidates is illegal."

The court outlined four categories of illegal admissions, emphasizing that admissions falling into these categories could not be condoned. The modus operandi employed by the colleges involved denying admission to candidates allotted by CENTAC and subsequently selling these seats to outsiders, disregarding provisional allotments made by CENTAC.

The learned Single Judge, while deciding a related writ petition, concluded that all 28 petitioners were unjustly denied admission by the colleges to which they were allotted. The court discredited the colleges' claim that there was no counseling on May 31, 2017, pointing to allotment orders and press notes from CENTAC that contradicted this assertion.

The court reiterated Regulation 9-A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, emphasizing that institutions had no room for admissions without the state-authorized agency's allotment. Dismissing the colleges' claim of authorization from the Government of Puducherry, the court declared the action of the Under Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Puducherry, in issuing the communication dated May 31, 2017, as beyond his powers and in violation of regulations and Supreme Court orders.

The court applauded the National Medical Commission for swiftly acting against these cases of illegal admissions, issuing discharge orders within six to eight months of the admissions being made. It said;

"We have already extracted Regulation 9-A of the PostGraduate Medical Education Regulations. It provides no room for any admission by an Institution without the allotment being made by the State Recognised Agency. Therefore, the contention of the Colleges that they were authorised by the Government of Puducherry to admit students from and out of the two lists cannot be accepted. The action of the Under Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Puducherry, in issuing the communication dated 31.05.2017 extracted supra is beyond his powers and is against the Regulations and the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the issue. If the seats fall vacant, they must be surrendered to the DGHS, there cannot be any admission by any of the Colleges either from and out of the NEET qualified candidates or otherwise. This position of law being clear, the admissions made in contravention of the above will have to necessarily be set aside and they have been rightly set aside by the National Medical Commission. It is rather gratifying to note that the Regulatory Body viz. the National Medical Commission has acted swiftly at least in these cases of illegal admissions and issued discharge orders within six to eight months of the admissions being made."

To substantiate the illegal admissions, reference was made to a Division Bench judgment in the case of Sri Venkateshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre vs. Medical Council of India, dated 13.08.2020 (WA Nos.494 and 500 of 2020). The Division Bench explicitly stated that Private Medical Colleges lack the authority to admit students independently. Paragraphs 61 to 65 of the mentioned judgment emphasize the restrictions imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on admissions and the absence of any residual power granted to institutions for independent admissions.

The court dismissed an argument suggesting an alternative merit-based system for filling stray vacancies, emphasizing that such additions would exceed the limits set by the Apex Court and existing regulations. The court underscored that any alteration in the admission scheme must align with the directions issued by the Apex Court and be communicated through either regulation amendments or clarifications from the Apex Court.

Referring to the tabular column created by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, the court concluded that the admissions in question were illegal. The court highlighted that the students' continuation in the course or participation in examinations did not alter the illegality of the admissions. Affidavits submitted by the appellants, stating they would not claim equity, were not considered compelling in the absence of a legal basis. The Court observed;

"In the case on hand each and every one of the appellants viz. the students have filed affidavits undertaking that they will not claim equity while securing the interim orders. We are therefore not enamoured by the argument based on sympathy."

Consequently, the first and second question were answered against the appellants, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Appeals filed by the students and their respective colleges.

Compensation for Medicos

Regarding the third question, which pertains to the compensation aspect, the court acknowledged the illegal denial of admission to 28 students. While granting the prayer for admission due to the lapse of time was impractical, the court found merit in providing compensation. Citing a similar situation in Dr. P. Sidharthan vs. Government of Puducherry (W.A.No.861 and 862 of 2017, dated 27.09.2023), the court awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000. The amount was apportioned between the institution and CENTAC at Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.5,00,000, respectively. The court deemed this compensation reasonable and found no grounds to deviate from the precedent set in the mentioned judgment.

Out of the 18 students who appealed, Dr. A. Aswin (the first appellant) and Dr. R. Mano (the fourteenth appellant) already received compensation in previous cases. So, excluding them, the remaining students were found eligible for compensation. Each student was entitled to Rs.15,00,000/-, with Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid by their respective institutes and Rs.5,00,000/- by CENTAC.

Subsequently, the Writ Appeal in WA No.1438 of 2021 was partially allowed, with each appellant entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for costs payable by the respective colleges. The other Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs were ordered for those Writ Appeals due to the active connivance of CENTAC and the Health Department of the Government of Puducherry with the colleges in implementing their scheme of illegal admissions. The court held;

"In fine, Writ Appeal in WA No.1438 of 2021 will stand partly allowed, apart from the compensation each of the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs payable by the Colleges shown in the Tabular Column against each of the appellant except first and fourteenth appellants. The other Writ Appeals will stand dismissed. We, however, batch make no order as to costs in those Writ Appeals since we have found that the CENTAC and the Health Department of Government of Puducherry were in active connivance with the Colleges and have helped them to great extent to implement their scheme to make illegal admissions. We sincerely hope that the Administration changes its attitude towards Medical Education at least in future."

To view the original order, click on the link below: