Dr. Manoj Sangwan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners' admission to P.G. Diploma in Sports Medicine with the respondent no.3 has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated

14.10.2009 passed by the Medical Council of India (for short the M.C.I.) primarily on the ground that their admission was beyond the time fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. 31st of May for the Post Graduate Courses. The petitioners have called in question the aforesaid order. Petitioners have qualification of M.B.B.S from the recognized universities. They claim to have achieved the excellence in different sports. They applied for admission to the course in question in response to the Prospectus issued by the Sports Authority of India i.e. Respondent no.4 for admission to the course for the session 2009-2010. The two years course is a Post Graduate Diploma in Sports Medicine. The advertisement/admission notice was published in newspapers on 18.3.2009. The petitioners applied within the prescribed time i.e. 15.5.2009 on the basis of their eligibility as the petitioners fulfill the requisite qualifications as notified in the aforesaid admission notice. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee at Patiala on 20.7.2009 and on the basis of their counselling, they were CWP. No. 3731 of 2010 -2- selected vide communication dated 20.7.2009 and admitted to the course on the same day. Respondent no.2 i.e the M.C.I issued a letter to the respondent no.4 regarding the admission of the petitioners allegedly after the last date i.e. 20.6.2009 prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As a consequence of the aforesaid communication dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) the petitioners have been served with the show cause notices impugned herein as Annexures P-5 to P-7 respectively. The petitioners have already submitted their detailed replies to the show cause notices. It is stated that in the Prospectus itself the commencement of the academic session is mentioned as 1st week of July to the last week of May. Thus, the admission of the petitioners is in accordance with the Prospectus and termination of the course on account of late admission is totally illegal and unjust. It is further contended that the petitioners having completed 8 months of course the equity is also in their favour. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has also emphasised on the fact that some of the petitioners left their jobs to join the course. Petitioner no.1 is stated to have resigned from the B.S.F to join the course, whereas petitioner no.2 was serving as Civil Assistant Surgeon and left the job to join the course. Similarly, petitioner no.3 was working as a Resident Medical Officer in Kolkata and left his job to join the course. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order. The petitioners' admission to course has been terminated only on the ground of admission beyond the time prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, otherwise the petitioners do not suffer any ineligibility or deficiency. The question of admissions to various medical courses CWP. No. 3731 of 2010 -3- including the Post Graduate Courses came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court initially in case of M.C.I Vs. Madhu Singh, reported as AIR 2002 SC 2230 and later in case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others reported as AIR 2005 SC 666. On consideration of the entire gamut of the issue relating to the admissions to the medical courses including the Post Graduate Courses and Super Speciality Courses the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions for making time bound admissions to all the courses. The relevant directions are contained in para 11 of the aforesaid judgement, wherein the complete schedule for admissions has been specified. In so far the Post Graduate Courses both under the All India quota and State quota are concerned the last date for admission to the course has been mentioned as 31st May of the year in question. The petitioners' case fall under this category. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to distinguish the directions contained in Mridul Dhar's case (supra) with the present controversy arguing that in the present case the Post Graduate Diploma in Sports Medicine is being conducted only by respondents no.3 and 4 and no other institute in the country has this course and thus it being a different speciality course is not governed and regulated by the directions contained in Mridul Dhar's case or for that matter the M.C.I regulations framed pursuant to the directions in Mridul Dhar's case. His further contention is that admissions were made strictly in accordance with the Prospectus issued by the respondent no.4, wherein the period for commencement of the academic session itself has been indicated. I have gone through the judgement of Mridul Dhar's case in extenso. The schedule specified in para 11 of the judgement makes no CWP. No. 3731 of 2010 -4- exception as regards the course or the All India or State quota are concerned. Not only this the M.C.I has framed regulations in pursuance to the aforesaid directions adopting the time schedule fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid schedule is being adhered to through out the country uniformly without any exception and the petitioners' case cannot be an exception notwithstanding the fact that some date was specified in the Prospectus in contravention to schedule fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement and the regulations framed by the M.C.I. With a view to ensure the implementation of the aforesaid directions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued following directions:- “ 12. The time schedule for grant of admission to postgraduate courses shall also be adhered to.

15. Time schedule provided in Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.” Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court have to be complied with and implemented by all courts in the country and authorities under Article 144 of Constitution of India. It is also relevant to notice that admission of petitioners is even beyond the time prescribed in the Prospectus i.e. 1st week of July, whereas petitioners were admitted on 20.7.2009. In any case admissions being in contravention of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot sustain In view of the above directions, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. No merit, petition dismissed. Copy of this judgement be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

28.4.2010. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE