Backdoor Entry in Medical Colleges: Supreme Court issues notice to NMC
New Delhi: The matter concerning the backdoor entry in medical colleges shall now be considered by the Supreme Court, which has recently issued notice in the matter to concerned authorities including the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC).
Approaching the Apex Court bench, the petitioner students challenged the Delhi High Court order of last year, where the HC bench had upheld the discharge order issued by the erstwhile MCI cancelling the admission of petitioner students while flagging the issue of backdoor entry.
However, while issuing the notice, the top court bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai expressed their concern that admitting such petitions might encourage similarly situated students and also referred to the issue how institutes overlook the legal framework regarding admissions and later use the students as a shield to justify their actions before the Judiciary.
"Colleges keep admitting students, they don't follow order of the MCI asking them to be discharged, they go to court and say the matter is pending 4 -5 years, our hands are tied. We see almost half a dozen cases like this…We realise that we have to also take into account that 4.5 years have passed. That's the problem," noted the bench.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that five students, who had been granted admission in 2016 by L N Medical College and Research Centre, Bhopal had approached the Delhi High Court after the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) discharged their admissions.
These students had been admitted without taking part in the centralised counseling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME). On the other hand, according to Supreme Court's direction, admissions in all government and private medical colleges in the country have to be done through the centralised counselling system on the basis of NEET examination result.
Such observations had been made by the Apex Court in a contempt petition after the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges had issued its own advertisement and admitted students on the basis of its own counselling. During the Supreme Court proceedings an undertaking was also given that all seats of Government as well as private institutions shall be filled up and no seat shall remain vacant.
After taking part in the counselling process, 5 seats in the concerned college remained vacant on the last day of counselling on 07.10.2016. Following this, the college wrote to the DME and informed about the vacant seats. However, as no action was taken by the Government, the college took matter in its own hand and admitted the petitioner students.
Consequently, the Medical Council of India (MCI) issued letters of discharge regarding the five petitioners in April 2017 and thereafter, several more communications were sent but neither the students nor the medical college paid any heed to them. The college continued to treat the petitioners as their students and allowed them to attend the course, appear in the examinations and get promoted.
Eventually, the five petitioners filed a petition seeking quashing of the discharge communications issued by the MCI and for direction that they be permitted to continue their studies in the medical college as regular medical students, which was dismissed by the single judge.
Also Read: Backdoor entry in medical colleges should stop: High Court
Thereafter, they challenged the single judge's order. However, a bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh also dismissed the appeal saying there is no merit in it.
"It is high time that such backdoor entries in educational institutions, including medical colleges, should stop. Lakhs of students all over the country work hard and toil to secure admissions to educational institutions on the basis of their merit," the bench said in its order on September 9.
"To permit any backdoor entry to any educational institution would be grossly unfair to those who are denied admission, despite being more meritorious, on account of the seats being taken and blocked by such backdoor entrants," it said.
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.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, challenging the HC Division Bench order, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court and the counsel for the student petitioners, Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul submitted that they had not been admitted outside the counselling process and they only secured admission when the vacancies were not filled by the States till the end.
"In this case right till the 4th counselling, the college concerned only went by the common merit list and the common counselling as directed by your lordships. After 4 rounds were over, there were 127 seats. DME sent a list of 125. There were two vacancies. On the last date, i.e., 7th June, 3 more students opted for it, which made it 5 vacancies. The Darus Salam principle of how vacancies have to be filled was not there. The college wrote to DME about the vacancy, even asked DME to suggest names. There was no response from DME. Then we were enrolled," submitted the counsel for the students.
At this outset, the top court bench noted, "In Saraswati case, the same argument was made. The students were approached at night, but no one responded."
Responding to this, the petitioner students' counsel Advocate Kaul clarified before the court that the matter was not similar to other cases as the students had not been admitted outside the counselling process.
"There they were actually counselling outside of the college counselling," submitted the counsel.
Following this, the bench enquired, "Here why were the petitioners discharged?"
"MCI says you were not enrolled and today we have done about 4.5 years," the counsel for the students submitted in response.
Taking note of the submissions the bench issued notice in the matter. However, at the same time, the Apex Court expressed its concerns that granting admission to such petitions would encourage similarly situated individuals to approach the court, even though the court clarify it time and again that such decisions should not be used as a precedent.
