1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of a rule prohibiting the filling of vacant medical seats in college-level counselling if they became vacant after the mop-up round. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 357
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 867, 868, 869 of 2021, SLP (C) Nos. 179, 1109, 1274 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2021
Important Points
Rule 12(8)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, prohibiting the filling of vacant mop-up round seats via college-level counseling, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as it imposes a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the right to manage educational institutions.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Article 14 and 19(1)(g)
Act Referred
ADMISSION RULES: R.12(8)(a)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19, Art.114, Art.14, Art.21
MADHYA PRADESH CHIKITSA SHIKSHA PRAVESH NIYAM: R.12(8)(a)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19, Art.114, Art.14, Art.21
MADHYA PRADESH CHIKITSA SHIKSHA PRAVESH NIYAM: R.12(8)(a)
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 - Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 - Rule 12 (8) (a) - Allotment of students who participated in the first round of counselling - Admission - Seeking permission to file SLP - Promulgated to provide for regulation of admission, fixation of fee and for reservation of seats to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in private unaided professional educational institutions and matters connected - Admission to private unaided professional educational institutions is dealt with in Chapter III of Act - Every admission to a private unaided professional educational institution shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of Act or Rules made - State Government constituted Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for supervision and management of admission process and for fixing fee to be charged from the candidates seeking admission in these institutions – Held, Management’s right to occupation under Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India stands defeated by Rule 12 (8) (a) as it prevents them from filling up all seats in medical courses - Upgradation and selection of subject of study is pertinent only to postgraduate medical course - In so far as undergraduate medical course is concerned, upgradation is restricted only to a better college - Not filling up all the medical seats is not a solution to the problem. Moreover, seats being kept vacant results in huge financial loss to the management of educational institutions apart from being a national waste of resources. Interest of general public is not sub-served by seats being kept vacant - On other hand, seats in recognised medical colleges not being filled up is detrimental to public interest. We are constrained to observe that policy of not permitting managements from filling up all seats does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a) - Classification of seats remaining vacant due to non-joining may be based on intelligible differentia but it does not have any rational connection with object sought to be achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a) - Appeals are allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim the rule is an unreasonable restriction on the right to occupation; State contends it prevents manipulation and ensures merit-based admissions. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. While preventing admission malpractice is a legitimate goal, prohibiting colleges from filling vacant seats is a disproportionate measure that causes financial loss and wastes national resources. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. A regulation restricting the fundamental right to carry on occupation must be proportionate and have a rational nexus between the means adopted and the objective sought. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 25 )
5. Rule 12(8)(a) declared violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; High Court judgment set aside and appeals allowed. (Para 1 , 26 )
6. On what grounds can subordinate legislation be challenged for violating fundamental rights?
Subordinate legislation can be challenged based on lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or the Constitution, failure to conform to the enabling statute, repugnancy to other laws, or manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness. (Para 15 )
7. What are the essential tests for determining the proportionality of a restriction on a fundamental right?
Proportionality requires that the measures adopted are rationally connected to the objective, impair the right as little as possible, and maintain a balance between the effects of the measure and the importance of the objective. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
8. What rights are protected under the right to establish and manage educational institutions as an occupation?
This right, protected under Article 19(1)(g), includes the right to admit students, set up a reasonable fee structure, appoint staff, and take action against employees for dereliction of duty. (Para 12 )
9. When is a restriction on the right to admit students in private unaided professional institutions considered unreasonable?
A restriction is unreasonable if the means adopted are disproportionate to the objective, lack a rational nexus with the goal, or are excessive to what is required in the public interest. (Para 24 , 25 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
1. We had heard the above set of Appeals and passed an order on 03.02.2021 as follows:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we declare Rule 12 (8) (a) of the MADHYA PRADESH CHIKITSA SHIKSHA PRAVESH NIYAM , 2018 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
We direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to initiate the process of filling up the 7 unfilled seats of 1st year MBBS course in the mop-up round for the year 2020- 21 by college level counselling within a period of 7 days from today.
Reasons to follow.”
2. Reasons for the order dated 03.02.2021 are given herein-under:
xxx xxx xxx
3. The Appellants-Private Medical Colleges filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, challenging the Constitutional validity of Sub-Rule 8 (a) of Rule 12 of the ADMISSION RULES ( MADHYA PRADESH CHIKITSA SHIKSHA PRAVESH NIYAM ), 2018 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the Appellants are before this Court.
4. The Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was promulgated to provide for regulation of admission, fixation of fee and for reservation of seats to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in private unaided professional educational institutions and matters connected therewith. Admission to private unaided professional educational institutions is dealt with in Chapter III of the Act. Every admission to a private unaided professional educational institution shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder. The State Government constituted the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for supervision and management of the admission process and for fixing the fee to be charged from the candidates seeking admission in these institutions.
5. Rules were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act. Rule 10 prescribes the process of admission to be on the basis of allotment of students who participated in the first round of counselling. The procedure for admission in second round of counselling is dealt with in Rule 11 and that of in last round (mop-up round) is found in Rule 12. The allotment of admission after completion of final round of counselling is governed by Rule 13. Amendments to the Rules were notified on 19.06.2019. The relevant amendment which is subject matter of challenge in these Appeals is Rule 12 (8) (a) which reads as follows:-
“(8) (a) The vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counseling (CLC) being conducted after MOP-UP round.”
6. Writ Petitions filed by Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre and Arushi Mahant and Others challenging Rule 12 (8) (a) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore by a judgment dated 15.12.2020. Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre and others have filed the Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 179 of 2021, assailing the validity of the judgment dated 15.12.2020. L.N. Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre has also challenged the said judgment of the High Court by seeking permission to file SLP. People’s College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre filed a Writ Petition questioning the vires of Rule 12 (8) (a) as well. It was disposed of by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh giving liberty to the Petitioner therein to file an appropriate representation before the Directorate of Medical Education for redressal of its grievances. People’s College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre and Another are questioning the order dated 13.01.2021 in one of the Appeals. As the point that arises in all these Appeals pertains to the validity of Rule 12
