Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Facts of both the writ petitions are common. For facility, the facts of writ petition No. 28550 of 2017 is being taken into consideration.

2. In Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others, 1984 SCC(3)SC 654, the Supreme Court facing the vexed question of admissions in medical Colleges directed that admissions in medical colleges run by the Union of India or by the State Government or by any municipal or local authority for M.B.B.S. courses shall be granted on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. Since then, the Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, have been scrupulously directing that the time schedule for making admissions in medical colleges should be strictly adhered to.

3. In Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others, 2002(7) SCC 258, the Supreme Court held that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh’s case (supra) laid down a schedule for completion of various stages of admission process, commencing of academic sessions and closure of admissions in the course of medicine and dentistry to be applicable to all medical and dental colleges in the country. The State Governments were also directed to strictly abide by the time frame for completion of each of the stages of admission process indicated in the time schedule. It was also indicated that no student should be admitted after the expiry of the last date prescribed for closure of admission.

4. The Supreme Court again reiterated strict adherence to the time schedule in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v. Union of India and others, 2005 (2) SCC 65. Certain directions were issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 35, some of which, which are relevant, are extricated hereunder:

“4. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territory and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance with the directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences.

12. The time schedule for grant of admission to postgraduate courses shall also be adhered to.

15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.”

5. In Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera and others, 2010(1)SCC 173, the Supreme Court reiterated the directions passed in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra).

6. In Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2012 (7)SCC 433, the Supreme Court re-emphasised the strict adherence to the statutory time schedule for admission in various courses. The Supreme Court held:

“40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations.

41. Inter alia, the disadvantages are :

1) Delay and unauthorized extension of schedules defea