BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VERSUS DR. PRIYAMBADA SHARMA & OTHERS

BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION  OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VERSUS DR.   PRIYAMBADA   SHARMA   &   OTHERS 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).3507­3508 of 2020)

BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION 

OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                 …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DR.   PRIYAMBADA   SHARMA   &   OTHERS                       …

RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24800 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24021 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24023 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24020 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

1

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).27463 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).26970 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).7077 of 2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).7111 of 2021)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Board of Governors of Medical Council of India (now, “The

National Medical Commission”) has filed these appeals assailing

the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta directing respondent

no.2­West   Bengal   University   of   Health   Sciences   to   admit   the

respondent­candidates initially by interim orders dated 04th  June

2019, 16th July, 2019 and 30th July, 2019 passed by the learned

Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta granting provisional

admission pursuant to interim orders to the student­applicants in

2

post­graduate medical courses beyond the cut­off date in complete

ignorance of their placement in the order of merit in post­graduate

medical courses, which were later disposed of by an Order dated

4

th  November, 2019 on the premise that since the respondentstudents   have   undergone   six   months   of   post­graduate   medical

course,   their   provisional   admission   stand   regularized   and   later

directed to be treated as a regular post­graduate student. 

3. Facts have been noticed from Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) Nos.3507­

3508 of 2020 and Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.27463 of 2019.

4.   It is not disputed that the respondent­students are MBBS

Doctors and appeared in NEET (PG)­2019 entrance examination

seeking admission in State quota seats in post­graduate medical

courses in medical colleges of the State of West Bengal for the

academic year 2019­2020.

5. The result of NEET­PG was declared by the National Board of

Education   (NBE)   on   31st  January,   2019.   The   minimum   cut­off

qualifying marks for NEET examination are as follows:­

1) Unreserved category ­ 50th percentile – 340/1200 marks

2) Reserved category(SC/ST/OBC)­40th percentile – 292/1200

marks

3

3) PwD – 45th percentile – 317/1200 marks

 The NEET marks and the rank of the respondent­students are

as under:­

1) Priyambada   Sharma­NEET   Score:386/1200;   NEET

Rank:57960

2) Priti Dhara ­ NEET Score:386/1200; NEET Rank:57948

3) Alankret   Dhillon   ­   NEET   Score:387/1200;   NEET

Rank:57581

4) Anirban Bose ­ NEET Score:318/1200; NEET Rank:78437

5) Mohd.   Asif   Kabir   ­   NEET   Score:341/1200;   NEET

Rank:71142

6) Kaustav De ­ NEET Score:626/1200; NEET Rank:24442

7) Sujan   Kr.   Ghosh   ­   NEET   Score:403/1200;   NEET

Rank:53324

8) Pushpak Ghose ­ NEET Score:626/1200; NEET Rank:12177

9) Sanjib   Kr.   Choudhary   ­   NEET   Score:319/1200;   NEET

Rank:78012

6. The   admission   schedule   for   the   academic   year   2018­19

onwards   for   post­graduate   courses   as   provided   in   the   Medical

Council   of   India   Postgraduate   Medical   Education   Regulations,

2000(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Regulations   2000”)

amended upto May, 2018 is as follows:­

In  the  above  Appendix  the  time  schedule  with  regard  to  Broad

Speciality  has   been   substituted   with   the   following   in   terms   of

4

Notification published in the Gazette of India on 20.02.2018 and

05.04.2018.

Admission schedule from the academic year 2018­19 onwards for

Postgraduate courses (broad speciality):­

S.No Schedule   for

Admission

Central Counselling         State

Counsellin

g

All   India

Quota

Deemed   +

Central

Institute

1 Conduct of Exam By 10th January

2 Declaration   of

result

By end of January

3 1

st  Round   of

Counselling

12th March24th March

12th

March –

24th

March

25th

March –

5

th April

4 Last Date of joining 3

rd April 3

rd April 12th April

5 2

nd  Round   of

Counselling

6

th April –

12th April

6

th April –

12th April

15th April

– 26th

April

6 Last date of joining  22nd April 22nd April 3

rd May

7 Mop up Round  12th May –

22nd May

4

th May –

8

th May

8 Last date of joining  26th May 12th May

9 Forwarding the list

of students in order

of   merit   equalling

to   ten   times   the

number   of   vacant

seats   to   the

Medical Colleges by

the   Counselling

Authority 

27th May 13th May

10 Last date of joining 31st May 18th May

   Note:

1. All India Quota Seats remaining vacant after last date for joining

i.e. 10th May will be deemed to be converted into State Quota.

2. Institute/College/Courses permitted after 28th  February will not

be   considered   for   admission/allotment   of   seats   for   current

academic year.

5

3. In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not

be extended after 31st May.

4. For the purpose of ensuring faithful obedience to the above timeschedule, Saturday, Sunday or Holidays (except National Holiday)

shall be treated as working day.

5. The   following   Matrix   shall   be   applicable   with   regard   to

permissibility   to   students   to   exercise   fresh   choice   during

counselling:­

Round  Fre

e 

Exit

Exit   with

forfeiture of

fees

Ineligible for

further

counselling

Amount   of

registration

fee

AIQ I/ 

Deemed

AIQ II/

Deemed

If   not

joine

d

If joined Government

­Rs.25,000

(half   for

SC/ST/OBC)

Deemed   –

Rs.2,00,000

State

Quota I

State 

Quota II

If   not

joine

d

If joined Government

­Rs.25,000

(half   for

SC/ST/OBC)

Private   –

Rs.2,00,000

State Quota

Mop­Up

Deemed 

Mop­Up

7. The admission schedule has to be rigidly followed in admission

to the post­graduate courses and Note 3 appended thereto clearly

stipulates   that,   in   any   circumstances,   last   date   for

admission/joining will not be extended beyond 31st  May and no

6

deviation   from   the   admission   schedule   is   permissible   and   this

schedule has been fixed by this Court pursuant to the judgment in

Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another vs. Union of India and Others1

followed in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others2

and Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others3

.

8. It   will   be   relevant   to   note   that   this   Court   in  Mridul

Dhar(Minor)   and   Another   (supra)  noted   that   there   was   no

consistency in fixing the time schedule for admissions to medical

courses   and   there   were   much   irregularities   in   maintaining   a

prescribed schedule which has been exploited by medical colleges

by   admitting   undeserved   students   and   that   was   affecting   the

academic session. This Court intervened in the matter and fixed the

time schedule for admission to the medical colleges including postgraduate admissions and accordingly, the schedule was notified by

the   Medical   Council   of   India   and   direction   was   given   for   strict

adherence   of   rules   which   was   later   reiterated   in  Priya   Gupta

(supra) followed by Ashish Ranjan and Others(supra).

1 (2005) 2 SCC 65

2 (2012) 7 SCC 433

3 (2016) 11 SCC 225

7

9. This Court specifically gave its approval to the admission

schedule which has been prescribed under the broucher of Medical

Council of India (now, The National Medical Commission) for the

academic   year   2018­19   onwards   for   the   post­graduate   medical

courses   which   the   Commission   has   to   strictly   follow   and   no

deviation is permissible in any circumstances and accordingly last

date for admission/joining will not be extended after 31st May. 

10. It reveals from the record that after the admission/counselling

process   was   over   on   31st  May,   2019,   approximately   153   seats

remained vacant in State Quota of the post­graduate medical seats

for the academic year 2019­20 and the respondent­students have

failed in their attempt after participating in the last counselling in

securing admission to post­graduate medical seat in any of the

specialty because of their much lower rank in the order of merit. 

11. At this stage, the respondent Dr. Priyambada Sharma and

others filed their writ petitions before the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution with the grievance that although the final

round of counselling on 31st May, 2019 is over, the post­graduate

seats for academic session 2019­20 are still available/lying vacant

8

and at least against the vacant seats, they may be considered for

admission in the post­graduate medical course.

12.  The learned Single Judge by interim orders dated 04th June,

2019,   16th  July,   2019   and   30th  July,   2019   in   a   batch   of   writ

petitions directed the appellant to grant provisional admissions to

the students in post­graduate medical courses by ignoring the cutoff date i.e. 31st  May and also ignoring the principle of merit and

these interim orders were later made absolute by order dated 04th

November, 2019 on the premise that the students have joined postgraduate medical courses and have undergone training/education

for   six   months   or   more   and   accordingly,   such   admissions   are

regularized   and   each   of   them   who   have   joined   post­graduate

medical course shall be treated as normal post­graduate student.

13.  These orders became a subject matter of challenge in special

leave petitions before this Court and the interim orders and also the

final order dated 04th  November, 2019 passed by the High Court

were stayed by this Court in the respective special leave petitions. It

is informed that so far as respondent Dr. Priyambada Sharma is

concerned, she has not continued her studies since September,

9

2019.   At the same time, in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.27463 of

2019, respondent­students were allowed to pursue the course by

the University despite the stay order granted by this Court. 

14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court

has   committed   manifest   error   in   directing   the   provisional

admissions   in   this   batch   of   appeals   in   post­graduate   medical

courses in the academic year 2019­20 beyond 31st  May and that

apart, the admission could not have been made on the principle of

first­cum­first­serve regardless of their placement in the order of

merit which is the touchstone for admissions to the post­graduate

medical courses. Such orders passed by the High Court are not

legally sustainable and deserve to be set aside.

15.  Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that merely

because some of the students have been allowed to be continued on

provisional basis in post­graduate medical courses despite the stay

order passed by this Court, no sympathy can be claimed by them

and such misplaced sympathy indeed will lay down a bad precedent

and   submits   that   all   such   interim   orders   and   the   provisional

admissions made of the respective respondents students in post10

graduate medical courses for the academic year 2019­20 deserve to

be quashed and set aside.

16. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   further   submits   that   in

numerous cases, petitions have been filed in this Court seeking

extension of time either on account of some particular exigency

faced by any individual college or university but generally on the

ground that large number of seats for post­graduate courses either

remained unfilled or are lying vacant and this Court has declined

such request with the direction that time schedule must be strictly

adhered to. 

17. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents

submits that either of the respondent­student was not at fault and

only because of the interim orders passed by the High Court in the

first instance, the University could not conduct the second round of

counselling within the time schedule and pursuant to the order of

the   Division   Bench   dated   30th  May   2019,   the   second   round   of

counselling was held on 31st  May, 2019 and on the same day,

admissions to post­graduate medical courses were closed.  Only to

meet out the aforesaid difficulty, interim orders were passed by the

11

High Court in the interest of justice.   In the first instance, the

respondent­students   are   deprived   from   participating   in   a   fair

manner in the second round of counselling which was held on 31st

May, 2019 and that was the reason for which the respondents

approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions and taking

the legitimate grievance of the students, interim orders were passed

granting provisional admissions to post­graduate medical courses

without disturbing the admissions already made and the students

have become the victims of delay in holding the second round of

counselling for the academic year 2019­20. 

18. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

students were not at fault and any intervention made by the High

Court   while   passing   the   interim   orders   in   the   first   instance

interfering the admission process duly notified, in no manner, could

be attributed to the students but ultimately down the line, it is the

students who suffer and at least such of the students who have

completed their course or are at the verge of completing the course,

be   permitted   to   complete   the   course   and   to   appear   in   the

examination and if that is not being permitted in the given facts and

12

circumstances, they will only lose three precious years of their life

and neither the appellant nor anyone else is going to be benefitted. 

19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

assistance perused the material available on record.

20. That so far as the time schedule prescribed by the Medical

Council of India in its Regulations, 2000 of which reference has

been made for the academic year 2019­20 for admission to the

post­graduate medical courses is concerned, it has to be strictly

followed and that, in any circumstance, is not to be deviated.  Last

date for admissions to the post­graduate medical course will not be

extended after 31st May and the schedule has been prescribed in

compliance of the judgments of this Court of which reference has

been made in Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another(supra) followed by

this   Court   in  Priya   Gupta   (supra)    and  Ashish   Ranjan   and

Others(supra)  and   this   Court   has   consistently   held   that   the

schedule for admission to the post­graduate medical courses must

be followed strictly leaving no discretion to any authority to permit

admissions over the cut­off date under schedule for admission to

post­graduate medical courses i.e. 31st May.

13

21. That even when the complaints are made to this Court that

large number of seats are lying vacant seeking extension of time to

fill   those   unfilled   undergraduate/post­graduate   seats   of   medical

courses, this Court always declined such requests and directed that

schedule must be strictly adhered to.

22. This Court in Education Promotion Society for India and

Another vs. Union of India and Others4 held as under:­

“6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time

not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual

college or university but generally on the ground that a large

number of seats for the PG courses are lying vacant. It is stated

that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed

by the UoI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are

concerned   there   are   603   seats   lying   vacant.   However,   it   is

important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are

in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95%

of the seats are lying vacant in non­clinical subjects. There is no

material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard

to the remaining 400­500 seats. This Court however can take

judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of nonclinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do

not want to do postgraduation in non­clinical subjects. Merely

because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to

grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up

vacant   seats.   The   schedule   must   be   followed.   If   we   permit

violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a

pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule

and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule

will be defeated.”

4 (2019) 7 SCC 38

14

23. Further,   this   Court   in  Dr.   Astha   Goel   and   Others   vs.

Medical Counselling Committee and Others5 held as under:­

“23. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when the

Medical Counselling Committee and the Union of India have to

adhere to the time schedule for completing the admission process

and when the current admission of NEET­PG­2021 is already

behind time schedule and ever after conducting eight to nine

rounds of counselling, still some seats, which are mainly nonclinical courses seats have remained vacant and thereafter when

a   conscious   decision   is   taken   by   the   Union   Government/the

Medical Counselling Committee, not to conduct a further Special

Stray Round of counselling, it cannot be said that the same is

arbitrary. The decision of the Union Government and the Medical

Counselling   Committee   not   to   have   Special   Stray   Round   of

counselling is in the interest of Medical Education and Public

Health.  There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or

quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the

Public Health.

26. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and held that even

after eight to nine rounds of counselling, out of 40,000 seats,

1456 seats have remained vacant, out of which approximately,

more than 1100 seats are non­clinical seats, which every year

remain vacant, of which the judicial notice has been taken by

this   Court   in   the   case   of Education   Promotion   Society   for

India (supra).”

24. In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered view,

the interim orders passed by the High Court granting provisional

admissions in the post­graduate medical courses in the months of

June and July, 2019 by orders dated 04th  June, 2019, 16th  July,

5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 734

15

2019 and 30th  July, 2019 which were later made absolute by an

order dated 04th November, 2019 are not legally sustainable.

25. The feeble submission made by the respondents’ counsel that

a sympathetic view may be taken on the premise that they have

been allowed to continue in their respective post­graduate medical

courses for quite some time or few of them have completed the

course in the         interregnum despite the order of stay granted by

this Court and the reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in

Medical  Council of India vs. Ritwik & Others6

, in our view, may

not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the

student was selected in the counselling in the first year MBBS

course but was not granted admission due to his inability to pay

the  fee before  the last  date i.e. 31st  August, 2018  and he  was

allowed to continue and pursue the course by interim order passed

by this Court.  In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, his

admission was approved under the order of this Court.  As far as

the   cases   of   present   respondents   are   concerned,   they   have

participated in the second round of counselling but failed to get any

6 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3280

16

seat in the post­graduate medical course because of lower rank in

order of merit and by interim orders passed by the High Court,

provisional admissions were granted to them ignoring the principle

of merit which cannot be countenanced by this Court.

26. In our considered view, no sympathy can be shown to such

students who have not only entered/admitted after 31st May of the

year but their admissions were completely in contravention to the

Regulations, 2000 and provisional admissions were granted by the

High   Court   ignoring   the   principle   of   merit   which   is   the   sole

touchstone for admission to the post­graduate courses based on the

NEET examination, 2019 where admissions are made strictly in the

order of merit­cum­preference and despite the stay order passed by

this Court, if they are allowed to continue in post­graduate medical

courses,   the   same   would   be   completely   illegal   and   such

contemptuous   action   on   the   part   of   the   authorities,   cannot   be

approved by this Court. 

27. Consequently,   the   appeals   succeed   and   are   accordingly

allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court in the

respective appeals are hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.

17

28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       …………………………….J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

…………………………….J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 17, 2022

18