Delhi High Court
Jamia Hamdard (Deemed ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 June, 2015
Author: S. Muralidhar
$~db-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 397/2015
JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) & ANR ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Sikri & Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhasin &
Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Advocates for R-2/MCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
O R D E R % 12.06.2015
CM No.11025/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA No.397/2015 & CM Nos.11023/2015 & 11024/2015
3. This appeal is directed against an order passed earlier today by the learned Single Judge in CM No.10764/2015 in WP (C) No.5941/2015. Before the learned Single Judge, the Appellants/Petitioners had sought a stay of the operation of an order dated 7th June, 2015 passed by the Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directing the Appellant not to admit any students in MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16. The said decision was on the basis of a recommendation made by Respondent No.2/Medical Council of India (MCI).
4. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has held that the Appellant No.1 would not be entitled to a stay of the order dated 7th June 2015 of the UOI and grant of permission for admission in the year 2015-16 without pleadings in the writ petition and the application or interim relief being completed. The learned Single Judge nevertheless permitted Appellant No.1 to continue with the process of admission already initiated till finalisation of the admission and accepting the admission fee "at its own risk and responsibility without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties till the next date of hearing by the regular roster Bench, i.e. 29.06.2015".
5. It is first submitted by Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants, that the learned Single Judge erred in declining to grant a stay of the order dated 7th June 2015 of the UOI which on face of it was illegal since it was passed without affording Appellant No. 1 an opportunity of being heard as mandated by Section 10- A (4) of the Medical Council of India Act 1956. He placed reliance on the decision in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital Dental College v. Union of India (2014) 13 SCC 506. Secondly, Mr. Tripathi submitted that the impugned order overlooks the difficulties that would come in the way of the Appellants if they did not have a decision of the Central Government on the issue of grant of permission by 15th June, 2015 to enable them to proceed to complete the process of admission of students. He refers to the time schedules set out by the Supreme Court of India in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65 which were reiterated in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433. He, in particular, drew the attention of the Court to para 40 (SCC) of the decision in Priya Gupta (supra), which makes it clear that the time schedules set out in the judgement have the force of law and are binding.
6. Thirdly, Mr. Tripathi expressed an apprehension that unless the issue of grant of permission by the Central Government was decided one way or the other by 15th June 2015, even if the Appellants subsequently succeed in the writ petition, an objection might be raised by the Central Government that since the Appellant No.1 did not have the approval of the Central Government as on 15th June 2015, it cannot admit students to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2015-16.
7. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Medical Council of India (MCI) first submitted that on the issue of the validity of the conduct of the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) for the current academic year 2015-16, the decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected on 15th June, 2015. As of date, there is stay of the declaration of the AIPMT results. Therefore, whether the AIPMT results would be available on 15th June 2015 or later would depend on the order that may be passed by the Supreme Court.
8. Secondly, it was submitted by Mr. Mehta that the Respondents will strictly adhere to the time schedule set out in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge and not seek any adjournment whatsoever as to the hearing of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge from 29th June, 2015 onwards. Thirdly, he pointed out that although the entire records were produced before the learned Single Judge, replies would have to be filed both by the Union of India and the MCI to place on record the factual position as regards the plea of the Appellants regarding non-observance of the principles of natural justice qua the order dated 7th June, 2015.
9. The above submissions have been considered. The decision of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta (supra) sets out two schedules. In para 29, the 'schedule for completion of the admission process for first MBBS course' as given in Appendix E of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 of the MCI has been set out. That pre-supposes declaration of the result of qualifying exam/entrance exam, which in this case would be AIPMT, by 15th June of the academic year. The last date up to which the students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason is indicated as 30th September. As explained in Priya Gupta (supra) "the date of 30th September was stated not to be the date of normal admission but is to give opportunity to grant admission against stray vacancies." Since the above Schedule requires the academic session to commence on 1st August, and gives the last date for joining of candidates as 31st August, it can be safely assumed that admissions have to be completed normally by 31st August and only stray cases of admission may take place till 30th September but not beyond that date.
10. A second schedule is set out in para 32 of the decision in Priya Gupta. This concerns the receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the MCI. This schedule has undergone some change since then. It is not in dispute that the last date by which letter of permission by the Central Government is to be issued is 15th June.
11. In light of the above schedules, which are to be treated as sacrosanct, it appears to the Court that in the event a party aggrieved by a refusal of permission by the Central Government successfully challenges such refusal in a writ petition, the date on which such party should be held to have been granted permission would relate back to the last date fixed in the schedule, i.e 15th June. This would, however, be subject to adherence to the other time schedule as regards admission of the students, if such party were to take avail of the benefit of the success in the writ petition for the very academic year for which the permission was sought. In other words, as far as the present case is concerned, if the Appellants were to succeed in the writ petition then subject to the time schedules in Priya Gupta (supra) as regards admissions of students for the academic year 2015-16 being adhered to, the permission of the Central Governmenvt should relate back to 15th June, 2015.
12. Since the adherence to the time schedules for admission to the academic year 2015-16 is non-compromisable, and the admissions for the said academic year have to be completed by 31st August even if the Appellant No.1 succeeds in the writ petition, the Court would request the learned Single Judge to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition from 29th June, 2015 itself so that the hearing can conclude and a judgement delivered at an early date. The Court here notes the assurance of Mr. Mehta, learned ASG that as far as the MCI is concerned, it will not seek any adjournment before the learned Single Judge. The Court binds down the UOI also to the same discipline.
13. The question regarding compliance with the principles of natural justice and Section 10 A (4) of the MCI Act by the UOI qua the order dated 7th June 2015 would be examined by the learned Single Judge on its merits. This Court does not consider it necessary to delve into that issue at this stage.
14. There is another aspect that requires to be dealt with. Mr. Mehta expressed reservations about the observations of the learned Single Judge regarding Appellant No.1 being permitted to continue with the process of admission on its own risk and responsibility. He referred to the observations in Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (2004) 6 SCC 76.
15. Since both writ petition and the interim application are pending before the learned Single Judge, and what has been permitted is only continuing the process of admission and that too at the own risk and responsibility of the Appellants, the Court does not see any serious prejudice being cause as long as the students from whom the admission fee is collected are sufficiently made aware by the Appellants of the pendency of the writ petition and the attendant risks.
16. The appeal and the applications are disposed of in the above terms.
S. MURALIDHAR (Vacation Judge)
I.S. MEHTA (Vacation Judge)
JUNE 12, 2015 b'nesh
