Akila KannanMinor rep by father and Natural Guardian R.Jayaraman v. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Secretary, Public Health Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 05-08-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.12531 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009Akila KannanMinor rep by father andNatural Guardian R.Jayaraman.. Petitioner.Versus1. The Government of Tamilnadu,Rep. By Secretary,Public Health Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Secretary,Selection Committee,Directorate of Medical Education,No.162, Periyar EVR High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.3. The Medical Council of Indiarep. By its Secretary,New Delhi.(R3 impleaded as per order, dated 27.7.2009,by MJJ in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.12531 of 20090.. Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, to declare that Clause 4of the prospectus for M.B.B.S. Course admission of the year 2009-2010 under the caption Age Limit, as null and void in so far as thepetitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.S.SenthilnathanFor Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (R1 & R2) Mr.V.P.Raman (R3)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, AkilaKannan, who had passed his S.S.L.C. Examination, in the month ofMarch, 2007. He had secured 464 marks out of 500 marks. His date ofbirth has been mentioned in the Secondary School LeavingCertificate, as 17.1.1993. Thereafter, he had appeared for theHigher Secondary Examination, held in the month of March, 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The marks obtained by him in the plus two examination are asfollows:Tamil-181English-159Physics-199Chemistry-191Biology-189Maths-183He had secured 1102 marks out of 1200 marks in the saidexamination.3. It has been further stated that the date of birth of thepetitioner in the mark sheet and in the transfer certificate is17.1.1993. The petitioner belongs to Vanniya community, which isrecognised as a Most Backward Class community. The petitioner hadsubmitted an application for admission to M.B.B.S course, for theacademic session 2009-2010, to the second respondent. Theapplication registration number is 319618. The A.R. number is 2260and the Random number is 9937688177. 4. It has been further stated that Clause 4 of the prospectusissued by the second respondent, for M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for theacademic session 2009-2010, stipulates that the candidate shouldhave completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2009. Eventhough the petitioner had secured the cut-off marks of 192 marksout of 200 marks, his name did not find a place in the merit/ranklist, published by the second respondent, for admission to theM.B.B.S course, for the academic session 2009-2010. On enquiry, hewas informed by the second respondent that his name had not beenincluded in the merit/rank list since he had not completed 17 yearsof age, on or before 31.12.2009. In spite of the fact that thepetitioner is qualified in all respects to be selected for theM.B.B.S. Course for the academic session 2009-2010, he has not beencalled for the counselling, only on the ground that he is short of17 days to meet the age requirement, prescribed in Clause 4 of theprospectus issued by the second respondent. The petitioner hasfurther stated that the age limit stipulated in Clause 4 of theprospectus is arbitrary, irrational and has no nexus to the objectsought to be achieved. In such circumstances, the petitioner haspreferred the present writ petition before this Court, uner Article226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhad submitted that Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the secondrespondent, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses, for theacademic year 2009-2010, which stipulates that the candidate shouldhave completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2009, isarbitrary, irrational and has no nexus to the course. Therefore, itoffends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as there isdiscrimination amongst the equally qualified candidates, who areseeking admission to the M.B.B.S course. 6. The learned counsel had further submitted that, while noage limit is prescribed for other professional courses like theB.E. Courses in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is arbitrary and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ irrational to prescribe such an age limit for the medical courses.Since the petitioner is only 17 days short of the stipulted agelimit, he must be considered for admission to the M.B.B.S course,for the academic session 2009-2010. Since the petitioner had beenpermitted to write the S.S.L.C public examination in the month ofMarch, 2007 and the Higher Secondary Examination, in the month ofMarch, 2009, he should have been considered for admission to theM.B.B.S course, even though he was 17 days short of the prescribedage limit. 7. Per contra, Mr.V.P.Raman, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the Medical Council of India, the third respondentherein, had submitted that the age limit stipulated in theprospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission toM.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, is inaccordance with The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000.Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which empowersThe Medical Council of India to prescribe the minimum standards ofmedical education, reads as follows:"19A. Minimum standards of medical education.-- (1)The Council may prescribe the minimum standards ofmedical education required for granting recognisedmedical qualifications (other than post-graduate medicalqualifications) by Universities or medical institutionsin India.(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of allsubsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by theCouncil to all State Governments and the Council shall,before submitting the regulations or any amendmentthereof, as the case may be, to the Central Governmentfor sanction, take into consideration the comments of anyState Government received within three months from thefurnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (3) The Committee shall from time to time report tothe Council on the efficacy of the regulations and mayrecommend to the Council such amendments thereof as itmay think fit."8. According to Section 33 of the Act, the Council may makeregulations, generally, to carry out the purposes of the Act. Inexercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of The IndianMedical Council Act, 1956, The Medical Council of India, with theprevious sanction of the Central Government had made the MedicalCouncil of India Regulations, 2000. The age limit of 17 years fixedfor admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S Courses are in accordance with theprovisions of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and The MedicalCouncil of India Regulations, 2000. Since the petitioner has notchosen to challenge the power vested in the Indian Medical Councilto make regulations, in accordance with Section 33 of the Act, andthe Regulations made by the Council, invoking the power vested init to make such Regulations, it would not be open to the petitionerto challenge Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the secondrespondent, for M.B.B.S./B.D.S Courses, for the academic session2009-2010, prescribing the age limit of 17 years for the candidatesto apply for the said courses. In fact, the age limit of 17 years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had been fixed by an expert commitee consisting of experts in themedical field and other related fields. Therefore, it may not beopen to the petitioner to question the age limit of 17 years fixedfor a candidate to be qualified to apply for the M.B.B.S./B.D.SCourses. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the thirdrespondent, The Medical Council of India, had relied on thefollowing decisions in support of his contentions:"1) Shri.D.R.Gautam Vs. University of Delhi andanother (C.W.No.4057 of 1997)2) Shri D.R.Gautam Vs. University of Delhi andanother (L.P.A.No.274 of 1997)3) Ms.Indu Vs. Central Board of SecondaryEducation and four others (C.W.No.1255 of 2000)4) U.Anveshini Vs. The Convenor EMCET 2000Jawaharlal Nehru, Technological University, Hyderabad andthree others (W.P.No.23357 of 2000)5) Amarsinha Vs. The State of Maharashtra throughthe Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department andfour others (W.P.No.1841 of 2003 batch)6) Mohit Kumar Arora Vs. University of Delhi andtwo others (C.W.P.No.4353 of 2003)7) Aarushi Jaswal Vs. Medical Council of Indiaand another (C.W.P.No.4834 of 2009)"10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the thirdrespondent had submitted that from the decisions in the cases citedsupra, it could be seen that the Courts have expressed the viewthat it is not the function of the Courts to go into the questionof prescription of age, unless, it seems to be so absurd andunreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not accept sucha prescription. Even otherwise, the Courts are not equipped withany expertise to come to a conclusion as to what would be theproper age for a student to enter the M.B.B.S. Course. It is forthe policy makers to consider the various factors which arerelevant to the issue, before fixing the age limit for admission tothe medical courses.11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the thirdrespondent had submitted that there is a rationale behind thefixing of the date on which a candidate must attain the age of 17years. It is intended to apply uniformly throughout the country.The Medical Council of India has chosen to fix the date as 31st ofDecember of the concerned year in which a candidate is admitted inthe M.B.B.S. Course. The qualifying examinations are conducted bythe various Boards, Universities etc., at different points of timein a year. Similarly, the entrance examinations for the admissionto M.B.B.S Course are conducted on different dates. Further, thefirst year M.B.B.S. Course may commence at different points of timein a year. Therefore, with a view to have uniformity, the MedicalCouncil has chosen 31st of December, as the date on which thecandidate should attain the age of 17 years, in the year in whichthe admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is made. Further, in theexisting pattern of education in the country, normally, a candidatepasses the qualifying the examination at the age of 16 or 17 years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of age. The Medical Council in its wisdom had come to theconclusion that, for proper understanding and comprehension ofmedical education, a candidate must possess certain level ofmaturity, which comes with age. The precription of the minimum ageis on account of studied deliberations made by the Medical Counciland is a manifestation of an informed decision taken by the MedicalCouncil in association with the Central Government, for prescribingthe minimum standards and qualifications. The said decision hasbeen taken in pursuance of the discussions, consultations anddeliberations made by an expert academic body and is made for thefurtherance and maintenance of minimum standards for medicaleducation. Therefore, such a regulation cannot be characterised asarbitrary.12. It has also been submitted that there is no power vestedwith the Indian Medical Council, or any other authority to relaxthe condition in favour of the candidates, in specific cases. Evenif the candidate concerned had been permitted to write the 10thstandard and the plus two examinations by granting an exemption,with regard to the minimum required age of the candidate, it cannotbe a good reason for the granting of such an exemption, in respectof the age limit fixed, under Clause 4 of the prospectus, issued bythe second respondent, for the M.B.BS/B.D.S admissions, for theacademic session 2009-2010. Therefore, the reliefs sought for bythe petitioner in the present writ petition is devoid of merits. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of theconsidered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner inthe present writ petition, cannot be granted. Clause 4 of theprospectus issued by the second respondent for admission toM.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, is inaccordance with The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, andthe provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 19Aof The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, provides that The MedicalCouncil of India, may prescribe the minimum standards of medicaleducation for granting recognised medical qualifications by theUniversities and the Medical Institutions in India. 14. Section 33 of the Act empowers the Council, with theprevious sanction of the Central Government, to make regulations tocarry out the purposes of the Act. It is not the case of thepetitioner that the relevant provisions of The Indian MedicalCouncil Act, 1956, and the Regulations of The Medical Council ofIndia Regulations, 2000, are inapplicable to the present case. Noris it the case of the petitioner that such provisions andregulations are arbitrary, contrary to the other laws in force,including the provisions of the Constitution of India. As such, itwould not be open to the petitioner to challenge Clause 4 of theprospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission toM.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, statingthat it is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 14 of theConstitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. Since the petitioner would not be completing 17 years ofage, on or before 31.12.2009, he is not qualified to apply for theM.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010. Merelyfor the reason that the petitioner had been permitted to write the10th standard and the plus two examinations, it cannot be a groundfor granting the exemption in favour of the petitioner, in respectof the age limit prescribed under Clause 4 of the prospectus issuedby the second respondent. In view of the decisions cited supra itis clear that the Courts of law ought to be reluctant to interferein matters relating to education, especially, when certainconditions of admission to medical courses are prescribed by theexperts in the medical and its allied fields. In such view of thematter, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayedfor by the petitioner. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, itstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petitionmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary,The Government of Tamilnadu,Public Health Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Secretary,Selection Committee,Directorate of Medical Education,No.162, Periyar EVR High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.3. The Secretary,Medical Council of IndiaNew Delhi.1 cc To Mr.V.P.Raman, Advocate, SR.355081 cc To Mr.S.Senthilnathan, Advocate, SR.35591Writ Petition No.12531 of 2009NSM(CO)SRA(25/08/2009)