VERY IMPORTANT POINT
No change of subject of fresh admission can be allowed after the date of close of admission even if a seat falls vacant or remains vacant. It would be against Prospectus and Regulations as held in this case.

Headnote:Medical Admissions-Admission in Post graduate course M.D.-Academic session started on 14.5.2000 and Admissions closed on 14.6.2000-Appellant did not get seat of his choice in first counselling but got it in second counselling which fell vacant-Respondent No. 4 who was higher in merit list filed writ petition which was allowed by High Court on 24.1.2001 and admission granted to appellant quashed-Whether correct? (No)-Appeal allowed-Clause in prospectus "the admission will close one month after the start of session and under no circumstance a change of subject of fresh admission will be allowed thereafter even if seat(s) remain(s) vacant" relied on-Case law referred Regulation 10(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1987 also referred.
Held : The clause in the prospectus makes it clear that there would be no change in the subject or re-admission into a different course once the last date of admission was over. To permit the respondent No. 4 to take admission in M.D. (Medicine) for the subsequent academic session would not only be a contravention of the prospectus but would also amount to an increase in the permissible seats for post graduate students in M.D. (Medicine) for the subsequent year. This is impermissible under Regulation 10(A) of the Medical Counsel of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 which provides, inter alia, that no medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission of the Central Government. An academic seat is limited to an academic session. It cannot like a vacant government post be "carried-forward" to the next year. [See : Dr. Indu Kant etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 71; Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1998(6) SCC 131 and the judgment delivered on 11th September 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 5166 of 2001 - Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors.]. Besides there is no question of the respondent No. 4 making up the requisite period necessary to complete the course. The course is for three years which having commenced in May 2000 should be completed in May 2003. The respondent No. 4 would be wholly ill equipped to take the examination nor would he have put in the requisite number of years for taking the 2003 examination. There is no provision by which a student who has, for whatever reason, failed to attend the course from the commencement of the session to take supplementary classes in order to be sufficiently equipped for the final examination. Apart from anything else, the post graduate courses in question are for 3 years. The respondent No. 4 and the appellant have already completed two and a half years of their respective courses. To disallow the appellant from completing her M.D. (Medicine) and to grant admission to the respondent No. 4 in M.D. (Medicine) at this stage would amount to a colossal waste of effort and expenditure. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court without any order as to costs. (Paras 9 to 11)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-The dispute in this case relates to the allotment of a seat to the Post Graduate course of Medicine (MD) (Medicine) for the academic session which commenced on 14th May 2000 in Pandit B.D. Sharma Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as PGIMS ).

2. The entrance examination for the academic session 2000 was held on 16th April 2000 by respondent No. 3, Guru Jambheshwar University, Hissar for the M.D. Course under the State quota for the PGIMS. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 4 were successful. The Respondent No. 4 was placed 24th whereas the appellant ranked 43rd in the merit list. The first choice of both the respondent and the appellant was admission in M.D. (Medicine) in PGIMS. The first counselling was held on 8th May 2000. The Respondent No. 4 was offered a seat in the M.D.(Anaethesiology) as there was no vacancy in M.D. (Medicine). The respondent No. 4 accepted the allotment but got himself wait-listed for the second counselling. The appellant was allotted a seat in M.S. (Obstetrics & Gynecology). Since the appellant did not get the course of her choice she also opted for being wait-listed for the second counselling. The second counselling was held on 13th June 2000. At the start of the second counselling, the respondent No. 4 was again allotted the seat in M.D. (Anaethesiology) which was accepted by him. The candidate who was 42th on the merit position had been admitted to M.D. (Medicine) course against the seat reserved for the All India quota in the first counselling. The subject of her choice was however M.D. (Pathology). She also opted to be wait listed for the second counselling. When the candidate in merit position 42 appeared before the Counselling Board in the second counselling as there was a seat available for the course of M.D. (Pathology), she opted for the M.D. (Pathology) course. As a result, the seat which was occupied by her in M.D. (Medicine) under the All India quota fell vacant. It was offered to the appellant who was next in the merit list. The appellant accepted the offer and joined the session on 14th June 2000. The admission process was closed on 14th June 2000.

3. On 25th September 2000, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in which the respondent No. 4 claimed that the admission of the appellant in M.D. (Medicine) was invalid as the respondent No. 4 was higher than that of the appellant in the merit position and the respondent No. 4 had the prior right over a seat in the subject of his choice. The writ application was allowed by the High Court on 24th January 2001 and the admission granted to the appellant M.D. (Medicine) was quashed. The University and the PGIMS were directed to grant admission to the respondent No. 4 against that seat.

4. The Petition for special leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court was filed in this Court on 8th February 2001 by the appellant. An interim order was passed on 9th February 2001 staying the operation of the High Court s decision. Consequently, the appellant has continued in the M.D. (Medicine) course and the respondent No. 4 has continued in the M.D. (Anaethesiology) course. The dispute centres around an interpretation of the following clause in the prospectus issued by respondent/University :

"The candidates will be called for counselling before the Board according to their respective merit as notified and they will be required to exercise their choice regarding the course (decree or diploma) and the subject of their choice. Selection to the course and the subject will be according to the availability of the seat(s) at their respective merit at the time of counselling. Those candidates who do not get the subject of their choice can accept one course and they will be free to change to another subject/course at the time of 2nd counselling if such subject/course becomes available at his merit. If somebody does not wish to accept any course

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 962

VERY IMPORTANT POINTNo change of subject of fresh admission can be allowed after the date of close of admission even if a seat falls vacant or remains vacant. It would be against Prospectus and Regulations as held in this case.

Cases Referred (4)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
No change of subject of fresh admission can be allowed after the date of close of admission even if a seat falls vacant or remains vacant. It would be against Prospectus and Regulations as held in this case.