The court emphasized the need to consider the educational and technological backwardness of the Union Territory and the constitutional provisions for special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes in deciding on the students' admission to the MBBS course.

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. A tricky question emerges for decision on these two intra-court writ appeals, which are directed against separate but identical judgments of a learned Judge of this Court refusing to grant relief to the appellants leading to dismissal of their writ petitions. We have to decide whether to uphold the legalistic views of the learned Judge or, bearing in mind the character of the rules/regulations under consideration, the decisions of the Supreme Court cited at the bar as well as the Constitutional obligations of the State to secure equal opportunities to all, to the extent possible, we ought to interfere and thereby temper justice with some degree of empathy.

2. The facts and circumstances that have unfolded before us ought to be noted as a prologue to our decision.

A. The two appellants, Ananya and Nikita, are residents of Port Blair, the capital of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (hereafter the said UT). After succeeding in the Higher Secondary (10+2) examinations with fairly high marks, the appellants dreamt of becoming doctors. There is no medical college in the said UT; hence, they participated in the All India Pre-Medical Test, 2014 (hereafter the AIPMT-2014) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the CBSE). From the materials on record, we can assess that at least candidates in excess of two lakh seventy-three thousand had taken the AIPMT-2014. While Nikita, having obtained 349 marks, was ranked 40,928, the rank of Ananya, who closely followed her with 347 marks, was 41648. Both were included in the category of III-B. We shall advert to this category a little later.

B. The procedure for admission in MBBS/BDS courses conducted by various State–run medical colleges and private medical colleges are regulated by the Medical Council of India (hereafter the MCI) by framing regulations from time to time. The regulations, relevant to the present controversy, are titled “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” (hereafter the 1997 Regulations). Since we are concerned with the MBBS course, two of the basic requirements for admission in such course required to be noted are that (i) an aspiring candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination (10+2); and (ii) must have also secured a minimum of 50% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the competitive entrance examination. The rank obtained by the candidate in the competitive entrance examination would be determinative of his/her merit and depending upon the number of seats that are available in the medical colleges, admission would be made strictly in order of merit.

C. Despite the above stipulations in the 1997 Regulations, a letter dated February 27, 2014 was issued by the Director (ME), Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, addressed to, inter alia, the Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department of the said UT. As would appear from a reading of such letter and the facts and circumstances following it, this letter dated February 27, 2014 appears to be the root of the litigative exercise before this Court. We consider it absolutely necessary to quote the said letter hereinbelow:

“Subject : Allocation of Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2014-15 – reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to say that this Ministry has received the communications from beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments seeking clarification on the mode of selection of candidates for nomination against Central Pool UG and PG dental seats.

2. The matter has been considered in this Ministry in light of judgment/directions passed by Apex Court in various cases, it has been