Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3793
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
Medical Council of India, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi
Versus
The Chairman, Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kanyakumari District & Others
Writ Appeal (MD)No.74 of 2010 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
Decided On :Decided on : 31-08-2010
For the Appearing Parties:V.P. Raman, Isaac Mohanlal, K.K. Senthilvelan, Asst.Solicitor General, D. Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate, C. Karthik, Advocates.
Ratio
Medical council cannot interfere and issue any direction to the management of the private medical college when there was a breach of the seat sharing arrangement between the management and the Government.
Headnote:(A)Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956)-Sec.33-Education-Medical college-Admission-Method-State quota-Medical council-Interference-Power-Management of the medical college had, for the previous year, filled up the seat that was left unfilled by the selection committee constituted by the Government-In the next year, the Medical council directed the management that those number of excess seats filled up by it in the previous year were to be given to the selection committee in addition to the regular number of seats given to the Government which was challenged the respondent management-Single judge held that as the seat was filled up by the management within the maximum intake limit fixed by the Medical Council, the appellant had no right to issue the impugned direction-In the appeal, Medical Council challenged the order of the single judge but the college defended the same-Held, the seat-sharing arrangement of the approved seats between the management and the Government was a private arrangement between them and any breach of the same would not give the Medical council any authority to issue direction to compensate it-Only when the management had admitted the students beyond the maximum sanctioned strength, Medical Council could issue direction to balance the strength-Appeal was dismissed.
(B)Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956)-Sec.33-Education-Medical college-Admission-Method-State quota-Breach-Medical council-Interference-Power-Medical council cannot interfere and issue any direction to the management of the private medical college when there was a breach of the seat sharing arrangement between the management and the Government.
In our opinion, these regulations would be available to the Medical Council only in the event the admission is made over and above the sanctioned strength. For example, if an institute had admitted more than 100 candidates, namely the sanctioned strength, it would certainly refuse to recognise the admissions made over and above the sanctioned intake. The power to take such action is not available if the seats are filled within the sanctioned strength. Para 13
That seat sharing is entirely between the institute and the Government and for that purpose the Medical Council has no role to say that as to whether such seat sharing could be made or not and if such seat sharing could be made what is the percentage of seat sharing, etc. The power that will be available to the Medical Council is not to find out as to whether the institute admits students according to the seat sharing agreement entered with the State Government but only to the extent as to whether the institute has admitted more than the sanctioned strength. To this extent, the Medical Council has power and not otherwise. Para 14
D. Murugesan, J.
This writ appeal, filed at the instance of the Medical Council of India, seeks to challenge the order in the writ petition holding that the Medical Council of India has no role in the matter of admission in medical colleges under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2.The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: (a)The 1st respondent Shri Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, (hereinafter referred as "the institute"), is owned and administered by a Trust known as Padnilam Welfare Trust. The said Trust had established the institute in question and the said institute had been recognised as a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution. It offers
M.B.B.S. Degree Course of 5-1/2 years duration from the year 2006, with annual intake capacity of 100 students. Though the institute was entitled to admit students for all the 100 seats by itself, by virtue of an Agreement entered by the Trust with the State Government, it had accepted to provide 50% of the seats from the total intake to be filled-in by the candidates sponsored by the State Government through counselling with a further right to fill-up the remaining 50% of seas as management quota. (b) During the academic year 2008-2009, the institute filled all the 50 seats under the management quota. Though the Selection Committee, constituted by the State Government, sponsored 50 candidates informing the last date for joining as 20.07.2008, 11 candidates did not join and the same was intimated to the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Selection Committee sponsored another set of candidates on 26.09.2008 informing the joining date as 29.09.2008. As there were still vacancies, a further list was sent by the Selection Committee on 29.09.2008 informing the joining date as 30.09.2008. (c) The contention of the institute is that out of the 50% of the seats meant for the State Government, 43 candidates only joined before the cut-off date, namely 30.09.2008 and on that date, the institute admitted seven candidates, namely the lapsed seats of the Government quota, on its own. It is contended by the institute that these seven candidates were admitted as against the Government seats and they were treated for all purposes as government candidates and fee applicable to the Government sponsored candidates alone were collected. (d) During the academic year 2009-2010 the institute had again accepted the seat sharing agreement of 50% : 50% as management seats and Government Seats and the institute filled all the 50 seats to which it was entitled to as management seats. At that relevant point of time, the Medical Council of India addressed a letter, dated 06.02.2009, to the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Director of Medical Education, the 3rd and 4th respondents herein, stating that the institute had admitted only 43 candidates under the Government quota and it admitted 57 candidates as against the management quota of 50 seats and the excess admission under the management quota, namely seven seats for the academic year 2008-2009, should be reduced as against the management quota for the academic year 2009-2010 and correspondingly it should increase allocation of Government quota seats for that academic year. (e) In view of the above communication, the State Government in Health and Family Welfare Department, in their letter dated 06.07.2009, addressed the Medical Council of India seeking for a clarification stating that even during the period 2006-2007 some of the seats meant for Government quota were filled-up by the colleges themselves and therefore to clarify as to whether those seats should also be surrendered to the Government in the subsequent years. In response to the said clarification sought for by the State Government, the Medical Council of India, by the order dated 23.07.2009, directed that the institute in question should surrender seven seats to
