Madras High Court: In writ appeals filed by the Post Graduate (‘PG’) Medical students and the Institutions against the order of the Writ Court, wherein the Court upheld the orders of discharge passed by the National Medical Commission (‘NMC’) of 34 Post Graduate medical students on the ground that the students were neither sponsored by the Centralized Admission Committee (‘CENTAC’), Puducherry, nor had they applied for admission through CENTAC, the division bench of R. Subramanian and R. Kalaimathi, JJ. held that the admission of all these discharged candidates is illegal and awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the students who were denied admission.
Issues and Analysis:
-
After the introduction of Regulation 9-A of the PG Medical Education Regulation, whether a Private Medical Institution has any right to admit a student, though a student has qualified in the National Level Eligibility cum Entrance Test?
-
In the teeth of the orders of the Supreme Court, particularly in State of M.P. v. Jainarayan Chouksey, (2016) 9 SCC 412, made in Contempt Petition and the judgment in Abdul Ahad v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 627 could this Court approve the action of the Colleges admitting students in violation of Regulation 9-A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation?
The Court said that being the first year in which common counselling was introduced for Admissions to Post Graduate courses in Medica Colleges, there was some confusion regarding the procedure that is to be adopted in filling up Post Graduate seats in Medical Colleges. The officials of the CENTAC were not abreast of the regulations fully and they were left groping in the dark. Aspirants were actually scavenging for seats. Even though the Supreme Court intervened to put things on track, there were several roadblocks faced by the State Authorities, who were to implement the directions of the Supreme Court issued from time to time. Further, it said that Regulation 9-A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation, was introduced with effect from 10-03-2017.
The Court noted that the Director General of Health Services (‘DGHS’) had written to all the States and Union Territories, informing them that Regulation 9-A has been introduced and therefore, it would be the responsibility of the respective State Governments and the Union Territories to conduct the common counselling for all PG admissions. The comprehensive language of Regulation 9-A of the PG Medical Education Regulation was also pointed out in those communications.
The Court took note of Education Promotion Society of India v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2116, wherein the Court had given directions regarding conduct of counselling, since ‘Deemed to be Universities’ claimed an exemption from being made subject matter of the common counselling that is to be conducted by the State Authorities on the ground that they had an All India Character. Further it referred to Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust v. Medical Council of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2119, wherein the Court rolled out the procedure that is to be followed in the counselling. It prescribed the procedure for payment of fees as well as the manner in which counselling should be conducted.
The Court took note of the announcement made by CENTAC on 30-05-2017 and said that this announcement is only an invitation to the candidates who had qualified in NEET to appear for counselling on 31-05-2017 at the CENTAC office. This announcement could not be treated as a license issued by CENTAC to the Colleges to admit students who were not sponsored/provisionally allotted by it.
Further, the Court noted communication dated 31-05-2017 issued by the Under Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Puducherry, and said that the said directions run counter to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust (Supra), as well as the directions issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which has been referred to in the said communication itself. Thus, the Court opined that this communication is per se illegal and the same cannot in any manner legalise the illegal admissions made by the Colleges. It has been issued with ulterior object of enabling the Colleges to sell the PG Medical seats.
As per the Court, the Single Judge has rightly pointed out that communication cannot legalise illegality and it is against the orders of the Supreme Court. Further, the Under Secretary had no authority to issue such communication and this communication will not validate the otherwise illegal admissions, made in violation of Regulation 9-A of the PG Medical Education Regulation, which mandates that all admission shall be made only through the Agency authorized by the State Government.
The Court pointed out that there are four categories of illegal admissions: and none of them can be condoned. They are:
-
Candidates who are admitted to non-clinical courses and moved to clinical courses by refusing admission to candidates who were sponsored by CENTAC;
-
Candidates allotted to a particular discipline in “A” College admitted in another discipline in the same College or moved to “B” College;
-
Candidates allotted to “A” College not joining admitted in College “B”;
-
Complete foreigners viz. those who have not registered with CENTAC at all.
The Court remarked that the illegality in the admissions is the denial of seats to properly sponsored candidates by the College. Thus, the Court answered the above two questions in negative.
-
Whether the students who were nominated by the CENTAC and were denied admission are entitled to be compensated and if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who should pay the compensation?
After placing reliance on Dr.P.Sidharthan v Government of Puducherrry1, the Court awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the students who were denied admission and apportioned it between the Institution and the CENTAC at Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. Further, apart from the compensation each of them were given Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs payable by the Colleges.
[Dr.Dhanush C M L v National Medical Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7461, decided on 09-11-2023]
1. W.A.No.861 and 862 of 2017
