SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3253

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Subramanian, R.Kalaimathi, JJ.
Dr.P.Sidharthan - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Puducherry, Rep. by Secretary to Government (Health) and ors. – Respondents
W.A.Nos.861 & 862 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.11843 & 11842 of 2017
Decided On : 27-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.B.R.Menon
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Sreedhar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, Ms.Shubaranjani Ananth

The absence of regulations regarding the demand for a service bond from government doctors and the need for regulations to address this issue in the context of PG medical admissions.

Headnote:

NEET - Medical Education Admission - PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000, Rule 9-A, Rule 9(vi) - The court discussed the regulations governing the admission process for PG medical courses, the requirement of common counseling, and the allocation of seats by the Centralized Admission Committee. It highlighted the absence of regulations regarding private medical institutions' right to demand a bond from government doctors and emphasized the need for regulations to address this issue. The court also addressed the fee fixation, the actions of the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, and the inaction of the authorities responsible for admissions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a successful NEET candidate, was denied admission to a PG medical course by the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner sought redress through writ petitions, alleging unjust denial of admission and seeking compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the denial of admission to be illegal and reprehensible, emphasizing the absence of regulations regarding the demand for a service bond from government doctors and the unjust actions of the institute and the responsible authorities. The court awarded monetary compensation to the petitioner, holding the institute and the Centralized Admission Committee responsible for the injustice.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the denial of admission, the absence of regulations regarding the demand for a service bond from government doctors, the fee fixation, and the inaction of the authorities responsible for admissions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for regulations addressing the demand for a service bond from government doctors and highlighted the illegal actions of the institute and the inaction of the responsible authorities. It held the institute and the Centralized Admission Committee responsible for the denial of admission and awarded monetary compensation to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The writ appeals were partly allowed, the judgment of the writ court was set aside, and the petitioner was awarded monetary compensation for the unjust denial of admission.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order in W.P.Nos.12347 of 2017 passed on 30.06.2017.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order in W.P.Nos.14393 of 2017 passed on 30.06.2017.

These two appeals arise out of two Writ Petitions filed by the appellant / petitioner in W.P.Nos.12347 & 14393 of 2017.

2.In W.P.No.12347 of 2017, the petitioner sought for a declaration that non-implementation of the selection of the petitioner in accordance with merit under the Government counselling conducted on 04.05.2017 is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, admit the petitioner in terms of the allotment order dated 04.05.2017 in M.S.(General Surgery) for the academic year 2017-2018 in the 4th respondent Institute / Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences.

3.The other Writ Petition in W.P.No.14393 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.12347 of 2017 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the rejection letter dated 02.06.2017 issued by the 1 respondent therein namely, the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and to direct the 1st respondent to admit the petitioner in terms of the allotment order without imposing an onerous condition of serving bond.

4.The above two Writ Petitions demonstrate a very sad state of a slip between the cup and the lip. The slip has proved to be a very costly slip for the petitioner, an aspiring young medical graduate.

5.The background facts are as follows:-

The parties are referred as per their ranking in W.P.No.12347 of 2017.

5.1.The petitioner, who is a medical graduate and serving as an Assistant Surgeon with the Government of Puducherry took the first ever National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) held in the year 2017 and was successful. He appeared for common counselling before Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) formed by the Puducherry Government on 04.05.2017. He was allotted a seat in M.S.(General Surgery) in the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and he was required to join by 3.00 p.m. on 15.05.2017.

5.2.According to the petitioner, he approached the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences the very next day but, he was required to pay an enormous fee of Rs.30,00,000/-. Being a Government sponsored candidate, the petitioner felt that fee demanded is exorbitant and he wrote to CENTAC on 06.05.2017, informing them that the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences is demanding a huge fee and has not admitted him based on the allotment made by the CENTAC on 04.05.2017.

5.3.The petitioner also moved this Court in W.P.No.12347 of 2017 and an interim order was granted, directing the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences to keep one seat vacant in M.S. (General Surgery). The said order came to be passed on 11.05.2017. Notice was made returnable by 05.06.2017. Subsequently, during the pendency of W.P.No.12347 of 2017, the Fee Committee constituted by the Puducherry Government fixed fee for seats in Post Graduate courses that fall under the 50% Government quota at Rs.3,00,000/- per year. Soon thereafter, as on 15.05.2017, the petitioner paid the said sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft.

5.4.It is to be noted here that the order fixing fee made by the Fee Committee was challenged by another Institution and this Court by order dated 18.05.2017 granted stay of the said order in W.P.No.12912 of 2017. It should also be noted that the Pondicherry Institue of Medical Sciences, the contesting respondent in these appeals did not challenge the fee fixation made by the Fee Committee on 14.05.2017. However, the Fee Committee itself revised the fee and issued another order on 24.05.2017, requiring the candidates, who have been allotted PG courses in medicine to pay Rs.5,50,000/- towards the fee.

5.5.The petitioner would claim that he had offered a Demand Draft for the balance of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences on 31.

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top