Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 86

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SRIKEERTI REDDI PINGLE & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2021
Decided on : 16-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Madhavi Diwan, ASG. Mr. P.Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv. Ms. Aishani Narain Adv. M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AoR Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar,Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AoR. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha,Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Admission to MBBS Course – There is a rationale and compelling logic on part of University to say that candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart from other two science subjects, along with further requirement of having studied English) in all relevant years during intermediate or at 10+2 level.

Headnote:
Education – Admission to MBBS Course – There is a rationale and compelling logic on part of University to say that candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart from other two science subjects, along with further requirement of having studied English) in all relevant years during intermediate or at 10+2 level – Examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoning merit or performance in qualifying examination – High Court followed its previous judgment and did not closely scrutinize equivalence certificate or subject stipulations – It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that candidate was in fact admitted by University – Provision must be read in context of requirements for eligibility under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) – Equivalence in qualification is not merely at level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that candidate should have passed an examination equivalent to intermediate science examination at an Indian University/ Board – Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English – These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f) – Approach and construction placed by High Court undermines intent behind MCI’s insistence that a certain kind of education should be undergone which is that each candidate for MBBS course should have undergone study in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, in each of the levels (i.e. two years of 10+2 board examination, or concerned intermediate examination) with practical exams, in each of those years; that he or she should also have had English as a subject, and that score in Mathematics would be ignored and not taken into consideration – Stipulation of equivalence in Regulation 4(2)(f) is not merely a formal one – Provision must be read in context of consistent conditions of eligibility prescribed in Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) – To be eligible, candidate should produce clear and categorical material to show that she underwent necessary years of study in all stipulated subjects – Such stipulations are to be regarded as essential, given that course in question, i.e., MBBS primarily if not predominantly, involves prior knowledge - both theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences – Impugned order set aside. [Regulation 4(2) of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997] (Paras 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (Appellant) appeals a decision of the Telangana High Court which had allowed a writ petition preferred by respondent (Student). The respondent student had sought a direction declaring the action of the University in treating her as ineligible for admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as illegal.
Findings of Court:
Equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that candidate should have passed an examination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an Indian University/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equivalence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f).
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.

2. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereafter variously referred to as “the University” or “the appellant”) appeals a decision of the Telangana High Court¹[Dated 31.12.2020] in W.P. No.23953/2020 which had allowed a writ petition preferred by the respondent (hereafter referred to as “the student”). The respondent student had sought a direction declaring the action of the University in treating her as ineligible for admission to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as illegal. The facts necessary for decision are few; the student had applied, pursuant to a notification issued by the University on 30.11.2020 for admission into the management quota for NRI candidates for the MBBS/BDS course during the academic year (AY) 2020-21. The student had applied for admission to the MBBS course. The University published a list on 12.12.2020 containing the respondent student’s name, clarifying that she had not furnished proof of study of Biological Science subject in the qualifying examination (10+2 or equivalent). The respondent student then secured a letter from the Consulate General of India in New York, stating that she had successfully completed the 12th grade from one Conrad High School, West Hartford, Connecticut and that it was equivalent to the Pre-University (Two Year Course) New Intermediate University and the 12-year Senior Secondary Board Examination Certificate of India. On 23.12.2020, the University issued a notification seeking web option for the second round of online counselling for admission to the MBBS/BDS seats in the management quota for AY 2020-21.

3. The student approached the High Court on 24.12.2020 and besides relying upon the certificate/letter issued by Conrad High School, she also relied upon a certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education dated 23.12.2020, which declared the equivalence and informed that the 12th class/senior secondary examination of the West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut USA was equivalent to the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education. The student applied for an interim order and was permitted to participate in the counselling process conducted for the remaining seats without prejudice to the parties’ rights. Thereafter, the University filed an application for vacation of the interim order, made its position clear and spelt out why according to it, the respondent student was ineligible.

4. The High Court, by its impugned order, relied upon the certificate of the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, as well as the letter dated 11.12.2020 of Conrad High School, and the certificate of 14.12.2020 issued by the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor. The High Court declared that she had completed her 12th grade with Biological Sciences as required by the concerned regulations framed by the erstwhile MCI – which continued to govern and regulate admissions to various classes of medical courses. The High Court also held erroneous, the University’s position that there was no proof of her studying Biological Sciences in the qualifying examination. The Court took note of the equivalence certificate issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, and was of the opinion that the University could not, therefore, approve and add new grounds in respect of the student’s application for admission. It concluded that the University acted arbitrarily in treating the student ineligible.

5. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General for India (ASG), relied upon Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as amended from time to time, particularly on 23.01.2018 (hereafter called “the MCI Regulations”). The relevant part of the Regulation is extracted below:

“4. Admission to the Medical Course -Eligibil