1. Admission to medical diploma course — Non-disclosure of non-recognition by the Medical Council of India in prospectus and during counseling — Writ petition for alternative course. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 337
2000(5) Supreme 436
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Dr. Reena Singhal -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11238 of 1995
Decided on 10-2-2000
Educational authorities cannot conceal material facts, such as the non-recognition of a course by the Medical Council of India, from candidates during admission. Such concealment justifies a writ of mandamus to provide the student with an alternative recognized course.
Headnote:Education-Post-graduate medical course-Admission to-Respondent was allotted and admitted to course conducted by college M -Course not recognised by medical council-Neither in brochure nor during counselling fact of recognition of course revealed to respondent-Concealment of material facts-High Court justified in directing State authorities to offer a course of speciality in either of medical colleges as sought for by respondent in her representation. (Para 1)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the provision of an alternative specialty course due to the non-disclosure of the original course's non-recognition. (Para 1 )
3. Concealment of material facts regarding the non-recognition of a medical course in the prospectus and during counseling is misleading and unjustifiable. (Para 1 )
4. Non-disclosure of a professional course's non-recognition by the regulatory body constitutes concealment of material facts, justifying remedial action for the misled student. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court's direction to offer an alternative specialty course upheld. (Para 2 )
6. Does the failure to disclose that a medical course is not recognized by the Medical Council of India constitute a material omission?
Yes, the court held that keeping back such vital information in the brochure, prospectus, and during counseling constitutes the concealment of a material fact and misleads the student. (Para 1 )
7. What remedy can be granted to a student misled into enrolling in a non-recognized medical course?
The court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to offer a recognized specialty course in an alternative medical college. (Para 1 )
8. What is the duty of educational institutions regarding course recognition during the admission process?
Institutions are required to disclose the recognition status of courses in their brochures and prospectuses and must impart this information to candidates during counseling. (Para 1 )
ORDER
The High Court has found on the basis of entries on record and the admitted position of the parties before it, that Diploma in Gynaecology Course being conducted in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi was not a course recognised by Medical Council of India and that at the time of counselling when a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology in the said College was offered to the respondent, who opted for it, she was not made aware of the position that the course was not a recognised course. It is also admitted that neither in the brochure nor in the prospectus was it disclosed by the appellants that the Diploma in Gynaecology in that College was not a course recognised by the Medical Council of India. The respondent was apparently misled. It did not behove the appellants to have kept back such vital information from the student seeking admission to the diploma course in the medical college. It was not only concealment of such a material fact in the brochure and the prospectus but, even at the time of counselling admittedly information was not imparted to the candidates. The High Court under the circumstances was justified in allowing the writ petition in the following terms :
"The writ petition is allowed and the opposite parties, particularly opposite party No. 2 is directed by a writ of mandamus to offer a course of speciality in either of the medical colleges as courses as disclosed by her in her representations dated 20.6.1994 and 10.9.1994 contained in annexures-6 and 8 respectively, to the writ petition within a period of one month from the date of service of a copy of this order."
2. In view of the admitted fact situation, we see no reason to interfere. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of U.P. v. Dr. Reena Singhal, 2000(5) Supreme 436 : 2000 (2) SCSLJ 219 : 2000 (4) JT 259
00019
