The importance of approval from the Medical Council of India for admissions and the lack of willful disobedience by the second respondent association or its members.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to grant admission to the petitioner to join in the M.B.B.S course in their medical college, for the period of 2015-2016 as according to the merit list made by the second respondent.

This Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish all the respondents for their willful disobedience and willful non compliance of this Honourable Court's order dated 25.09.2015 made in WP.(MD).No.17182 of 2015.)

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent Medical College to grant admission to the petitioner to join in the M.B.B.S., course in their medical college in the academic year 2015-2016 according to the merit list made by the second respondent herein.

2. According to the petitioner, though she had secured 194.5 cut off marks, she could not get a medical college seat under the Government quota. Hence, she had applied to the 12 private medical colleges, who are the members of the second respondent association under the management quota for the academic year 2015-16. According to the petitioner, she had applied to the second respondent herein, quoting third respondent college as her first preference and Annapoorna Medical College, Salem as her second preference for joining the M.B.B.S., course. According to the petitioner, as per the prospectus issued by the second respondent on 20.09.2015, a common rank list would be prepared and published by them and according to the cut off marks of the students, the students have to contact the college as per their preference.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that she was under the legitimate expectation that her cut off being 194.5 marks, her name would be found in the ranking list. However, no such ranking list was ever published by the second respondent herein. Though the petitioner and her father went to the third respondent college, there was no display of the rank list in the notice board or the website as per the directions of the Division Bench.

4. The petitioner had further contended that the second respondent association is not following the admission procedure and hence, every year several malpractices are happening to avoid meritorious candidates and they are attempting to fill up the seats by non-meritorious candidates by collecting capitation fee. The petitioner has further contended that due to non-display of the result, she is not in a position to get admission, though she is ready to join the said college even on 21.09.2015. Hence, she has given a representation on 21.09.2015 to the third respondent college to give her admission for the academic year 2015-16. The first respondent committee, being a monitory committee and a statutory authority, they should monitor the selection and admission of the students in the member colleges of the second respondent association and they have not taken any action for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to grant admission to join M.B.B.S., course in the third respondent medical college for the academic year 2015-16 as per the merit list prepared by the second respondent.

5. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner had filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to display the rank list of M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2015-16 immediately, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an interim order on 25.09.2015, directing the second respondent to publish the rank list and if the name of the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for admission to M.B.B.S., course, the second respondent was directed to grant admission to the petitioner in any one of the 12 colleges under them. In the said interim application, the learned counsel for the third respondent college had appeared and plac