Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Sachin & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13180 of 2022 & CM Appl. 39902 of 2022 & W.P.(C) 13407 of 2022 & CM Appl. 40715 of 2022
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Mr. Jeetender Gupta & Mr. Ashish Mishra, Advocates., for the Petitioner; Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms. Rupali Kapoor, Advocate., for the Respondents UOI.; Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Michlle B. Das, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur & Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates., for the Respondents No. 2; No. 3:- Mr. Sahil A. Garg Narwana & Mr. Shikhar Singhal, Advocates., for the Respondents; Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Priya Mishra, G.P with Mr. Prakash, Advocate. Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Bhanu Gulati,, for the Respondents UOI.; Mr. Michlle B. Das, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur & Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates., for the Respondents No. 2; Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advocate., for the Respondents Nos. 3 & 6
The court established that the legislative competence, constitutionality, and reasonableness of regulations are crucial in determining their validity. It emphasized that the absence of a vested right and legitimate expectation can impact the court's decision on the application of regulations.
Headnote:
Regulation 7.7 - Medical Education - National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 - Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought to set aside Regulation 7.7 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, as being ultra vires Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners had attempted to pass the first professional examination four times but were prohibited from doing so under Regulation 7.7. They sought another opportunity to appear for the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Impugned Regulations did not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that the Respondent No. 2 had the legislative competence to enact the Impugned Regulation and that the regulation was not arbitrary. The Court also ruled that the Petitioners did not have a vested right to secure a medical degree, and the Impugned Regulation could be applied retrospectively. It dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Issues: Whether the Impugned Regulations are ultra vires of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and whether the Petitioners should be given another opportunity to appear for their 1st year examination in their respective medical colleges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles of judicial review of subordinate legislation and held that a successful challenge to the present regulations could only be levelled on grounds such as lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, repugnancy to other laws, and manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness. It also emphasized that the Petitioners did not have a vested right to secure a medical degree, and the Impugned Regulation could be applied retrospectively. The Court found that the Petitioners did not have a legitimate expectation to either get a degree or get another attempt.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The instant Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227, of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner Students seeking inter alia, setting aside of Regulation 7.7 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 dated 04.11.2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 Commission ('Impugned Regulation') as being ultra vires Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. It appears that back in 1997, the Respondent No.2 (erstwhile Medical Council of India) vide notification dated 04.03.1997 notified the 'Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.'
3. The Petitioners herein, after clearing Class XII examination, secured admission in the MBBS Course at their respective medical colleges, i.e. Respondent No.3 to 5, as per the allotment done by Respondent No.6 University from 24.06.2019 to 03.09.2019.
4. In 2019, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, to bring changes to the medical education system. On 04.11.2019, the Respondent No. 2 vide Amendment Notification dated 04.11.2019 notified 'Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019' to amend the 'Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997'.
5. The Regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997, from Clause 2 to 14 have been included as Part I of the Impugned Regulations. On the other hand, Part-II of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 govern batches admitted in the MBBS course from academic year 2019-20 onwards. In Part II, the Impugned Regulation being 7.7 has been inserted, which reads as follows: -
'No more than four attempts shall be allowed for a candidate to pass the first Professional examination. The total period for successful completion of first Professional course shall not exceed four (4) years. Partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt.'
6. The Petitioners attempted to pass the first professional examination four times by 2022 but could not succeed. Thereafter, in light of Regulation 7.7, the Petitioners have been prohibited from writing these exams again. Aggrieved by the same, between 01.08.2022 and 16.08.2022, some of the Petitioners sent a representation to Respondents, requesting the Respondents to allow them to appear in the examination.
7. It has also been placed on record that a Writ Petition with similar reliefs was filed before the Kerala High Court, which has passed an Order stating that status quo be maintained.
8. Aggrieved by the Impugned Regulations, the Petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petitions.
9. In sum and substance, the contentions of the Petitioners are that the Impugned Regulations violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it has been argued that the Impugned Regulations should not be implemented retrospectively in terms of the judgment titled Rohit Naresh Aggarwal vs Union of India, 204 (2013) DLT 401 (DB). No other grounds have been availed by the Petitioners.
10. Per contra, the Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has argued that the Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the promulgation of the Impugned Regulations was beyond the legislative competence of the MCI. It has also been argued that it is the State's prerogative to decide and determine the calibre of students to be admitted to medical colleges. In this regard, the Respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 120, and Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353. It has also been argued that the scope of judicial review in educational policies is very narrow as delineated in University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519.
11. Heard the Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents, and perused the material on record.
12. Upon a perusal of the material on record, the questions that emerge be
