IMPORTANT POINT
Central Govt. was fully justified when it rejected the request of State Govt. for grant of permission for one time increase in the admission capacity in medicine and dentistry courses in various medial colleges in the State of Maharashtra which arose due to revised merit list in Maharashtra Health Services Common Entrance Test, 2001.

Headnote:(i) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-Section 10A-Dentist Act, 1948-Section 10A-Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-Section 10A r/w 33-Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase in Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulation, 1993-On 29.4.2001 Maharashtra Health Services Common Entrance Test was conducted-There was discrepancy in Biology paper marking-Writ petitions filed-Discrepancies corrected-New merit list prepared-Dislodging of earlier merit list admissions-Necessitating additional seats in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) to overcome the situation-State Govt. approaching Central Government for one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses-Central Govt. rejecting the request in view of Section 10A and regulations-Whether the Central Government was justified in doing so? (Yes).
       Held : The compliance of the requirements under the Act and the regulations being mandatory, in the absence of its compliance, no permission can be granted by the Central Government for increase in admission capacity in any course in any medical college. In the present case, the State Government sought one time increase in admission capacity in various medical colleges on the premise that medical colleges possessed all the facilities. This was not sufficient. What was required, was that medical colleges desirous of one time increase in admission capacity should have submitted a scheme prepared in accordance with the Act and the regulation to the Central Government. No such scheme was submitted to the Central Government and medical council has no occasion to verify the sufficiency of the facilities and other requirements. There being no compliance of requirements under the Act, the Central Government was justified in refusing the permission for one time increase in the admission capacity in the medical colleges. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the order of the Central Government when it refused to grant permission to the State Government to have one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine and Dentistry in various medical colleges located in the State of Maharashtra. (Para 8)
       The Medical Council can only make recommendations to the Central Government for grant of permission for one time intake capacity in seats only when it is satisfied that scheme to be submitted by the medical colleges fulfils all the requirements. Unless such a scheme providing for all the requirements provided for in the Act and the regulations is submitted to the Central Government and the Medical Council is satisfied that the scheme complies with all the requirement and makes a recommendation to that effect, only then the Central government can consider for grant of permission for increase of admission capacity in a medical college. Similarly, the Central Government without compliance of the Act and the regulations cannot grant, without recommendation of the Medical Council, any permission for one time increase in admission capacity in various courses conducted by the medical colleges. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the Central Government was fully justified when it rejected the request of the State Government for grant of permission for one time increase in the admission capacity in medicine and Dentistry courses in various medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra. (Para 9)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ of mandamus-Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have issued directions to the Central Govt. to grant one time increase in admission capacity in medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses undertaken by various Medical Colleges (Govt. run as well as private management run colleges) in the State of Maharasthra-(No)-High Court upheld except its direction No. F(3)-Appeals dismissed accordingly.
       Held : It is not permissible for the High Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory provisions. The power conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 226 is to enforce the rule of law and ensure that the State and other statutory authorities act in accordance with law. (Para 11)
       For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the High Court acted within its parameters when it refrained itself from issuing direction to the Central Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in various courses in different medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra. We are further of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in issuing various final orders and directions while allowing the writ petitions, excepting direction No. F(3), which was not appropriate and the same is set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, except for the aforesaid modification in the judgment, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 14 to 16)

JUDGMENT

V.N. Khare, J.-Leave granted.

2. This group of appeals gives rise to following two questions for our decisions :

(1) Whether, in view of an extraordinary situation having arisen, the Central Government was justified in rejecting the request of the State Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses run in various medical colleges located within the State of Maharashtra.

(2) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have issued directions to the Central Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses undertaken by various medical colleges (government run as well as private management run colleges) in the State of Maharashtra.

3. The aforesaid questions have arisen in the context of the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter. On 29.4.2001, the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as MH-CET 2001) was conducted for health sciences courses such as Medicine (MBBS), Dentistry (BDS), Ayurved (BAMS), Homeopathy (BHMS), Unani Medicine (MUMS), Physio Therapy (BPTH), Occupational Therapy, Audio and Speech Therapy (BASLP) and Prosthetics and Orthotics (BP and O). In the said examination about 67.563 students appeared throughout the State of Maharashtra. With a view to see that there is no chance for any unfair means, the question papers were prepared in four versions and they were marked as versions 11, 12, 33 and 44. The questions in all the versions were the same. But there was a change in their order. Thus, the students answering the examination were given papers of different versions one after another i.e. version 11, 22, 33, and 44 and thereafter version 11, 22, 33 and 44 and so on which would have made copying or use of unfair means very difficult. The result of the said examination was declared on 17.5.2001. On the basis of the result of the said examination a merit list was prepared for purposes of admission in various colleges. Those who were higher in merit were given admission in colleges of their choice and adjusted against free seats. In other words, admissions against free seat and payment seat in various courses and disciplines were made according to the merit list. Many selected students on the basis of the said merit list took admission in various medical colleges and seats meant for Medicine and Dentistry were particularly filled up. After the result was declared, the writ petitioners in writ petition No. 1658/2000 before the High Court found that they have received lesser marks in biology paper answered by them than their expectations. The writ petitioners before the High Court suspected that there was obviously some error in the evaluation of biology paper in the MH-CET 2001. Some newspapers printed and published from Mumbai also reported that some mistakes have occurred in the process of computerization in the master copy for answer paper in version 33. It is under such circumstances, the writ petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for re-valuation of biology paper of the said examination. After filing of the writ petition, the State Government got a re-verification of answer sheets carried out by six Examiners. The Examiners reported that there were mistakes/errors in the model key answer sheet of eversion 33 in the subject of biology. In view of the aforesaid mistake and error, the respondents decided to reevaluate all the answer sheets of version 33. After revaluation of the answer sheets of version 33 the directorate prepared revised merit list showing the correct ranking of the students in the light of re-verification and undertook the entire admission process afresh in respect of all the candidates, including those who have already been admitted. In view of the aforesaid deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1671

Cases Referred (4)