Separate Entry not Accepted: HC dismisses Trust Nominations to PG medical courses in IPGMER
Kolkata: Prioritizing "merit and merit alone" for admission to PG medical courses, the Calcutta High Court recently set aside nominations made by a Private Trust for admission to PG medical seats in Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGMER), a Government institute.
On the basis of an agreement, the Trust recommends candidates for PG medical courses in the institute. However, setting aside the nominations by the Trust, the HC bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted, "The Trust has also violated the single-point entry to admission to PG courses and the single-umbrella supervision to the process of admission mandated under the Regulations. The Trust, in fact, has created a separate channel of entry to admission to PG courses guided by selection criteria which are exclusive to the Trust and without the sanction of the supervising authority under Regulation 9."
The HC bench was considering the question whether a nomination can be made by a non-State body for admission to post-graduate medical courses to the Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGEMR) which is a Government hospital and medical college in the State of West Bengal.
The concerned petitioner and respondents students participated in the NEET-PG, 2021 and underwent the internal examination conducted by Rai Bahadur Seth Sukhlal Karnani Chandanmull Karnani Trust for being nominated to a post-graduate medical seat in IPGMER which is a reputed institution founded by the Trust.
After taking note of the submissions, the HC bench referred to the previous court orders delivered in 1984-1992 and opined that those judgments were not binding precedents.
Therefore the bench referred to the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended from 2008-2018, and noted
"The changes, pointed out on behalf of the Trust and the private respondents is that the requirement of students being selected "strictly on the basis of their academic merit" (2000) → "strictly on the basis of their inter se academic merit" (2008) → "shall be admitted to Post-graduate courses from the said merit lists only" means that the only requirement which the Trust must satisfy is selecting candidates from the merit list. In other words, the respondents construe the changes to mean that the only requirement is to select candidates from the merit list of the NEET-PG test. There is hence no requirement of selecting candidates on the basis of their inter se academic merit. The respondents hence contend that candidates need not be selected in accordance with their position in the merit list and that the Trust is under no obligation to respect their inter se academic position as reflected in the list."
"A plain and literal construction of the provision is that an all India and a State-wise merit list of eligible candidates will be prepared according to the marks obtained in NEET-PG which would in turn determine the priority of admission of the candidates to the PG courses."
"The above makes it clear that the NEET-PG examination is the only prescribed entrance test for admission to Post-graduate medical courses. Regulation 9 including clause (4) thereof bolsters the uniformity and exclusivity of the entrance test by requiring admission to be made only on the basis of the order of merit of the candidates. The reliance placed by the respondents on the transformed 9(4) does not give any clarity on the intention of the legislation. The progression from "strictly on the basis of their academic merit" → "strictly on the basis of their inter se academic merit" → "from the said merit list only" does not mean that the rank of the candidates can be given a go-by. Indeed, if candidates are selected for admission in a random order without due regard to their position and rank, the entire objective of The Indian Medical Council Act, as amended and the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 would be rendered meaningless."
"This Court is therefore unable to accept that the only condition which the Trust was required to fulfill was selecting candidates from the merit list or that such selection could be made by way of a parallel assessment without due regard to the rank obtained by the candidates. Admittedly, the Trust conducts a separate process of assessment for selecting candidates for admission to the PG Medical Courses. The selection process involves a test after which the selected candidates are recommended by the Trust to the concerned college authority for admission. The affidavit of the State respondents in paragraph 7 specifically states that the Trust recommends candidates on the basis of its own selection test which has no relation with the NEET-PG ranking. This assertion further persuades the Court to hold that the Trust has acted in violation of the 1956 Act and the 2000 Regulations in conducting an exclusive and a parallel selection process for admission to PG Medical Courses outside the statutory framework of the Indian Medical Council Act and the Regulations."
Finding the Trust in violation of the 2000 Regulations, the bench observed,
"The Trust has admittedly recommended the private respondents for admission to medical course despite the private respondents being placed lower in the order of merit compared to the petitioners in the NEET-PG Examination. In discounting the positions obtained by the petitioners in the NEET-PG Examination, the Trust has failed to conform with Regulation 9 including Clause (4) thereunder of the 2000 Regulations."
"There is hence a built-in unfairness in the whole process. While the PG medical seats are a limited few in number, the aspirants to these seats are in lakhs. The information of the nomination by the Trust is fortuitous and the selection criteria unknown and un-published. It hence raises a presumption that the Trust is controlling a separate entry under its own particular evaluation mechanism leaving out those who remain unaware of the nominations which may also include those who performed better in the NEETPG than the candidates nominated by the Trust. The Trust hence renders itself vulnerable and subject to judicial scrutiny on all scores. The conclusion is that the nominations made by the Trust are in violation of the 2000 Regulations," it further mentioned.
Slamming the State for accepting nominations that violated the rules, the bench mentioned in the order, "The State cannot therefore hold on to its promise in the garb of a contractual obligation when the fulfillment of such obligation is dehors the existing statutory framework."
"In conclusion therefore, the only consideration for selection of candidates for admission to Post-graduate medical courses within the statutory framework as it exists today is, "Merit and merit alone"," read the order.
At this outset, the bench referred to Supreme Court order in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore Association vs Union of India and Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and noted,
"There is no intelligible benchmark disclosed by the Trust as to the reason why the private respondents were recommended for admission despite having lower ranks compared to the petitioners in the NEET - PG Test. The assessment hence is a parallel selection process outside the recommended statutory framework and is subversive of the Act and the Regulations. The Trust has not only turned a blind eye to merit but has doffed its hat to the dilution of merit. The State is hence precluded by law to accept the recommendations."
"A distinction should be made between the facts of this case and awards and scholarships given by private bodies, some of which are globally recognised. These instances of private rewards/sponsorship are not governed by a unitary statutory framework regulating the selection and admission of the candidates. These are essentially private grants for sponsoring the particular course, that is, the private body is itself the sponsorer. Not only is the present case concerned with a statute governing the admission of candidates to medical courses without any deviation from the same being permitted, the Trust's obligations ends with the recommendations. It is the State which bankrolls the recommended candidates. The burden is ultimately hence on the public who are ironically put at the receiving end of sponsoring future-doctors without knowing whether they are the best of the pick."
Setting aside the nominations made by the Trust, the bench ordered, "The nominations made by the respondent no. 4 in WPA 18122 of 2021 being the Managing Trustee of the Rai Bahadur Seth Sukhlal Chandanmull Karnani Trust for admission of the private respondents to the medical courses in IPGME&R are set aside."
To read the court order, click on the link below
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/calcutta-hc-179752.pdf
Also Read: Calcutta High Court orders dissolution of West Bengal Medical Council
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.