Madras High Court
Sri Venkateswara Medical College vs Medical Council Of India on 21 February, 2025
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.13974, 14650 & 14754 of 2018
In W.P.No.11995 of 2018:-
Sri Venkateswara Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre
Rep. By its Chairman,
B.Ramachandhiran,
No.13-A, Pondy Villupuram Main Road,
Ariyru, Puducherry-605 102. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Medical Council of India
rep. By its Assistant Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110 077.
2.The Union Territory Puducherry
rep. by its Under Secretary
to Government,
Health & Family Welfare Services
Department,
Puducherry-605 001.
Page Nos.1/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
3.The Director,
Health & Family Welfare Services (DHFWS),
Victor Samuel Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
4.The Convener,
Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC),
PEC Campus, ECR Road,
Pillaichavadi,
Puducherry-605 104.
5.The Pondicherry University
rep. by its Registrar,
Administrative Building,
R.V. Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry-605 014. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of
the first respondent in impugned proceedings in No.MCI-34 (MC-
UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017 and quash the same as
invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Lakshmanan
For Respondent-1: Ms.Shubaranjani Ananth
MCI
For Respondent : Dr.B.Ramasamy, AGP (P)
Nos.2 & 3
For Respondent-4: Mr.Mahashnath
For Respondent-5:Mr.K.Hari Shankar
for Ms.A.V.Bharathi
Page Nos.2/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
In W.P.No.12629 of 2018:-
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical
College and Hospital,
Rep. by its Dean,
Dr.Kagne R.N.
Kaltheerthalkuppam,
Madagadipet,
Puducherry-605 107. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Services,
New Delhi- 110 011.
2.Medical Council of India
rep. by its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110 077.
3.The Secretary to Government (Health),
Chief Secretariat (Health),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605 001.
4.The Under Secretary to Government (Health).
Chief Secretariat (Health),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605 001.
5.The Director,
Directorate of Health &
Family Welfare Services (DHFWS),
Victor Samuel Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
Page Nos.3/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
6.The Convener,
Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC),
PEC Campus, ECR Road,
Pillaichavadi,
Puducherry-605 104.
7.The Registrar,
Pondicherry University
Kalapet,
Puducherry-605 014. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining the impugned order passed by the second
respondent vide No.MCI-34(MC-UG)/2017-18/155447 dated
21.11.2017 and the consequential orders passed by the fourth
respondent vide No.2592/Health/115/2017-18/343, dated
06.12.2017; impugned order by the seventh respondent vide
No.PU/AW-2/7/2017-18/363 dated 18.01.2018 and Ref. No.PU/Aca-
7/Recog/SMVMC&H/2017-18/183 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to approve/recognize the
admission of those 41 students, who were discharged by the impugned
order of the second respondent dated 21.11.2017, admitted in the first
year MBBS Course under the Management Quota for the academic
year 2017-18 in the petitioner institution, enabling to peruse their
course and appear for the exams in future.
Page Nos.4/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For Respondent : Ms.Shubaranjani Ananth
No.1
For Respondent : Dr.B.Ramasamy, AGP (P)
Nos.2 to 5
For Respondent-6: Mr.Mahashnath
For Respondent-7:Ms.A.V.Bharathi (P)
In W.P.No.12506 of 2018:-
1.Abarna Sree S.B.
2.Akshay P
3.Amirthasivani B
4.Amirthesh Roshan Ross R
5.Devaraj R
6.Gaythri Kanna R
7.Gnana Kirushna S
8.Gokul M
9.Hariprashanth A
10.Harshwanth V
11.Indira Gandhi G
12.Jannani R
Page Nos.5/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
13.Kaarthik Roshan C.K.
14.Karthick Kumaravel S
15.Karthikeyan S
16.Kaviya S
17.Keerthivasan S
18.Kishore Kumar R.S.
19.Lakshaya T
20.Lavanya N
21.Malavika Mohan
22.Manju Akalya D
23.Manjulakshmi R
24.Nadar Enstein Christopher
25.Nivethiga A
26.Prabu Ponraj P
27.Preethi S
28.Raghul C
29.Snehashree T.S.
30.Srinidhi Chandra R
31.Srinithi R
32.Supriya M
Page Nos.6/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
33.Suriya M
34.Swarna Padma K
35.Umanath R
36.Vadhunisha B.S.
37.Vasanth S
38.Vengatesan B ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Medical Council of India
rep. by its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110 077.
2.The Union Territory Puducherry,
Rep. by its Under Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare
Services Department,
Beach Road, White Town,
Puducherry-605 001.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Health &
Family Welfare Services (DHFWS),
Victor Samuel Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
4.The Convener,
Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC),
PEC Campus, ECR Road,
Pillaichavadi,
Puducherry-605 104.
5.The Pondicherry University.
Page Nos.7/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Rep. by its Registrar,
Administrative Building,
R.V. Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry-605 014.
6.Sri Venkateswara Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre
Rep. By its Chairman,
No.13-A, Pondy Villupuram Main Road,
Ariyru, Puducherry-605 102. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of
the first respondent in impugned proceedings in No.MCI-34(MC-
UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017 and quash the same as
invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Raja
For Respondent-1: Ms.Shubaranjani Ananth
MCI
For Respondent : Dr.B.Ramasamy, AGP (P)
Nos.2 & 3
For Respondent-4: Mr.Mahashnath
For Respondent-5:Ms.A.V.Bharathi
Page Nos.8/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
Assailing the impugned proceedings of the first respondent/MCI
in No.MCI-34(MC-UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017, the
petitioner/Sri Venkateswara Medical College Hospital & Research
Centre, Puducherry has come forward with the present Writ Petition in
W.P.No.11995 of 2018.
2. Challenging the impugned order passed by the second
respondent/MCI vide No.MCI-34(MC-UG)/2017-18/155447 dated
21.11.2017 and the consequential orders passed by the fourth
respondent/Government of Puducherry vide
No.2592/Health/115/2017-18/343, dated 06.12.2017; impugned order
by the seventh respondent/Pondicherry University vide No.PU/AW-
2/7/2017-18/363 dated 18.01.2018 and Ref. No.PU/Aca-
7/Recog/SMVMC&H/2017-18/183 and consequently to direct the
respondents 1 to 7 herein to approve/recognize the admission of those
41 students, who were discharged by the impugned order of the
second respondent/MCI dated 21.11.2017, admitted in the first year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
MBBS Course under the Management Quota for the academic year
2017-18 in the petitioner's institution, enabling to pursue their course
and appear for the exams in future, the petition in W.P.No.12629 of
2018 has been preferred by the petitioner/institution/Shri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry.
3. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent/MCI in
No.MCI-34(MC-UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017, is put under
challenge, in W.P.No.12506 of 2018 filed by the petitioners
herein/students of the sixth respondent college/Sri Venkateswara
Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Puducherry.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties in all the
Writ Petitions.
5. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and
the same, the Writ Petitions are taken up and heard together and
disposed of, by way of a common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
6. Facts of the Case:-
6.1.a) The short facts which leads to the filing of the present
petition as averred in the affidavit of the petitioner in W.P.No.11995
of 2018, is as follows:-
The petitioner is a linguistic minority educational institution and
the present case pertains to admissions of students for MBBS for the
academic year 2017-18. The fourth respondent/CENTAC conducted
pre-counselling, where in the first counselling held on 18.08.2017 no
candidates were allotted and in the second counselling held on
19.08.2017, 3 candidates were allotted however only one candidate
joined the petitioner college. In the mop up counselling conducted on
28.08.2017, 92 candidates were allotted, out of which only 54
candidates joined the petitioner college in which 54, 2 were NRI
candidates. On 24.08.2017, the petitioner requested the first
respondent/MCI to permit them to fill up the vacant seats after mop-
up counselling from the NEET qualified candidates. Due to which, the
fourth respondent/CENTAC sent a list of students in the ratio 1:10. In
this backdrop, the petitioner did not have any response from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
students in the aforesaid ratio and hence, addressed a letter dated
30.08.2017 to the third respondent to permit them to call candidates
from All India Basis, who secured NEET marks in the range of 355 to
107 to fill up the vacancies. Based on the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.30336/2016 dated 28.08.2017, the
petitioner also made a representation on 31.08.2017 as no candidates
reported them for admission to the third respondent to fill up from the
NEET qualified candidates listed in the fourth respondent/CENTAC
web-site and in this respect, he also filed a petition in W.P.No.23810 of
2017 which has been closed on the ground that the list had already
been released by the second respondent/Government of Puducherry.
In view of it, the petitioner on 31.08.2017 admitted 38 candidates
from the list of NEET 2017 qualified merit candidates, who applied
through the fourth respondent/CENTAC under Management quota
downloaded from the fourth respondent web-site.
6.1.b) The petitioner stated that the common counselling 2017-
18 in Puducherry was not conducted as per the prescribed time
schedule of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as the first
respondent, where the scheduled dates for the first counselling for
Management seats were to be on 16.07.2017 and 24.07.2017 but the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
same was conducted only on 18.08.2017, wherein only 3 candidates
came for 95 seats as the second respondent/Government of
Puducherry restricted the selection to minority of Puducherry domicile.
The second counselling was held on the next day itself i.e., on
19.08.2017. Due to which, only 5 seats were filled out of 95 seats. It
is to be noted that neither the schedule nor the procedure for minority
admission was followed which is in violation to the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust Vs.
Medical Council of India. In total, the mop up counselling was also
not conducted in a proper manner. While that being so, the first
respondent/MCI passed the impugned letter in No.MCI-34(MC-
UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017, directing the petitioner to
discharge 94 students and cancel their admissions. The second
respondent/Government of Puducherry through his communication
dated 06.12.2017, directed to discharge only 38 students and not 56
students from 94 admitted students. The petitioner sent a letter dated
02.12.2017 by placing all the facts to the first respondent/MCI but the
same was not considered. In continuation of the same, the fifth
respondent/Pondicherry University by letter in No.PU/AW-2/41/2017-
18/364 dated 18.01.2018, directed the petitioner to discharge 38
students and sought for explanation on or before 31.01.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
6.2. The factual matrix of the petitioner's case in
W.P.No.12629 of 2018 is as follows:
6.2.a) The subject matter in issue pertains to the admissions of
MBBS students for the academic year 2017-18 which was completely
done as per the procedure based on the common counselling
conducted by the sixth respondent herein/CENTAC. He further
submitted that the rank list was prepared by the CENTAC on NEET
qualification. He added that after two rounds of counselling, mop up
counselling was also conducted and the students were admitted on
payment of prescribed fee. Even after mop up counselling, seats were
available and in order to fill up those vacant seats, the petitioner
requested the CENTAC to send the larger NEET list as per the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has held that the
Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), is at liberty to give
the larger NEET list if 1:10 ratio merit list is exhausted. He also
submitted that 41 students were admitted in their institution from the
MBBS/BDS Courses Merit (2017-18) All India Quota (including
Puducherry U.T.) furnished by the CENTAC and the same was
uploaded in the portal of the MCI on 31.08.2017. In the meanwhile,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
the second respondent/MCI passed the impugned order on
21.11.2017, for which a detailed explanation was given and the
petitioner requested to drop the discharge order of 41 students. In
effect of the order of the second respondent dated 21.11.2017, on
18.01.2018, the seventh respondent herein/Pondicherry University had
passed the impugned order to comply with the orders of the
respondents 2 and 5/MCI & DHFWS and also passed the proceeding of
rejection for recognition of admissions of the said 41 students.
6.2.b) It is stated that all the identified 41 students in the order
impugned by the second respondent/MCI are NEET qualified and none
was admitted beyond the last cut off date, as well as they had all
applied with CENTAC and thus, the order passed by the second
respondent is an absolute flaw, as he had passed the order stating
that the names of the students identified by them, were not available
in the DME's list.
6.3. The short facts which led to the filing of the petition by the
petitioners herein in W.P.No.12506 of 2018 are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
6.3.a) The petitioners herein are the students admitted in MBBS
Course for the academic year 2017-18 in the sixth respondent college
herein/Sri Venkateswara Medical College Hospital and Research
Centre, Puducherry. They were NEET 2017 qualified merit students
and their names are found in the main merit list, as well as the
additional merit list released by the fourth respondent/CENTAC. They
were admitted by the sixth respondent college on 31.08.2017 from
the list of NEET 2017 qualified merit candidates, who had applied with
the fourth respondent/CENTAC under Management quota and that
their names were downloaded from the fourth respondent web site.
To their shock, the MCI passed the impugned order dated
21.11.2017, discharging the petitioners from pursuing the course.
7. Aggrieved over the impugned orders of the
respondents/Medical Council of India, New Delhi; The Director of
Health and Family Welfare Services, Puducherry and Centralized
Admission Committee/CENTAC respectively, the present Writ Petitions
have been preferred by the petitioner(s).
8. Contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
petitioner(s):-
In W.P.No.11995 of 2018:-
8.1.a) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 21.11.2017 has been passed without application
of mind and verification of facts and also that neither notice was
served nor opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain their
case. The first respondent/MCI in a blind fold manner passed the order
to discharge 94 students, whereas the fourth respondent/CENTAC has
stated that only 38 of the admitted students were not in their list as
the 56 candidates were admitted under Government quota and the
Puducherry Government has directed to remove their names from the
discharge list. He further submitted that the first respondent/MCI had
only compared the list of CENTAC with that of the list of admission list
of the petitioner without enquiring the procedure adopted by CENTAC.
8.1.b) At this juncture, the learned counsel pointed out that the
petitioner institution is a linguistic minority institution and seat sharing
rule does not apply to it. He relied upon the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dar-Us-Salam Educational Trust Vs. Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Council of India in W.P. (Civil) No.267 of 2017, stating that
neither the schedule nor the procedure for minority admission was
followed which is in violation of the said order. He also drew the
attention of this Court that the ratio 1:10 list was sent where it
contains the students from the top instead of the pattern of
successive counselling i.e., from lowest rank in the last counselling
which resulted in none joined the institution as they had already joined
other colleges. Be that may, the petitioner filed a petition in
W.P.No.23810 of 2017 which was closed on 07.02.2018 by recording
the submission of the fourth respondent/CENTAC that the list had
already been released. He made it clear that the admission was done
only on 31.08.2017 and the said 38 candidates were admitted on NEET
qualification from All India NEET list. Hence, he pleaded this Court to
consider all the above aspects and to allow the Writ Petition.
In W.P.No.12629 of 2018:
8.2.a) The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the
admissions of 41 students, whose names have been identified by the
second respondent/MCI in its impugned order to discharge are
admitted from the list furnished by the CENTAC merit list, which were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
vacant as on 29.08.2017. He further contended that the institution
have not admitted any student on its own. He also submitted that the
impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity
or seeking an explanation from the petitioner in regard to the said 41
students' admissions, which is in violation to the principles of natural
justice.
8.2.b) Moreover, he submitted that it is pertinent to note that in
all the three self financing colleges of Puducherry, the same actions
have been taken and they all filed the Writ Petitions. But however,
one of the college has given an undertaking to surrender their
discharged 26 students' seats to the Government quota and to pay the
fine, as they have admitted the students mentioned by the MCI out of
the provisions and hence, their Writ Petition has been disposed of,
whereas the petitioner's case lies on a different footing and would not
bound by the said order as they have adopted the procedures properly
in admitting the 41 students identified in the impugned order of the
second respondent/MCI are admitted through the merit list obtained
from the CENTAC by adhering to the guidelines.
8.2.c) The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court
to the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
of Akshita Singh V. Union of India and Others dated
28.08.2017, wherein it has observed that if vacancy persist even
after exhausting 1:10 ratio, then liberty is granted to get into the
larger NEET list to admit the students. He submitted that since there
was vacancy after 1:10 ratio merit list as on 31.08.2017, a proceeding
was issued by the Government of Puducherry to the three Self
Financing Colleges to fill those seats as per the merit list drawn and to
complete the admission as per the guidelines. He argued that the
counselling has been conducted by the CENTAC by duly complying
Clause 5 of the Regulations and hence, the admissions of the 41
identified students of the second respondent/MCI in its impugned
order, cannot be said to be illegal, as the admissions were done by
adhering to the clause of the Regulations.
8.2.d) The contentions of the second respondent/MCI stating
that the 41 students names were not found place in the merit list, is
absolutely false which can be revealed on perusal of the records itself.
He would submit that MCI without proper verification has passed the
order of discharge, which is unsustainable in the eye of law.
8.2.e) At this point of time, the learned counsel felt it relevant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
bring to the notice of this Court that the students whose admissions
are in question, have completed their course as the impugned order
has been stayed by this Court in the year 2018; they got their degrees
and enrolled themselves with the Medical Council.
8.2.f) While summing up his contentions, the learned counsel
submitted that, after following due procedure and regulations, the 41
students, whose admissions were identified as illegal by the second
respondent/MCI in the order impugned, have been admitted in the
petitioner's institution after exhaustion of 1:10 ratio merit list and their
names were found place in the list furnished by the CENTAC. Hence,
he prayed this Court to take into consideration of all these aspects and
allow the Writ Petition.
In W.P.No.12506 of 2018:
8.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Students of Sri
Venkateswara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre submitted
that, neither opportunities nor any notices were issued to the
petitioners herein, seeking an explanation by the first respondent/MCI
before passing the impugned order. He vehemently submitted that
the first respondent ought to have taken into account, the relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
regulations by verifying that the petitioners' names were mentioned by
the fourth respondent/CENTAC are within the additional merit list,
including the main merit list for All India Category of candidates ,who
have applied to the fourth respondent/CENTAC. He contended that
without application of mind and proper verification, the first
respondent/MCI had passed the impugned order to discharge 94
admitted students, out of which, 56 students were of Government
quota and the remaining 38 students were admitted after exhaustion
of 1:10 ratio merit list on 31.08.2017. He further contented that
without application of mind had passed the discharge order of removal
of 94 students, where 56 candidates were sponsored by the fourth
respondent/CENTAC, which was admitted by the respondents 2, 3 &
4/Government of Puducherry and they have been admitted by the
sixth respondent college from All India merit list given by the fourth
respondent/CENTAC. As such, their admissions are done adhering to
the norms and regulations. Thus, he prayed this Court to allow the
Writ Petition.
9. Contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner(s), the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
respondents proposed the following points supporting their stand:
Medical Council of India:-
9.1.a) The learned counsel submitted that the role of MCI is to
ensure that the admissions in all the medical courses are made in
accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
[hereinafter referred to as “IMC Act”] and the Regulations made
thereunder, dealing with the eligibility criteria, as well as the
procedure, for selection of students. She further submitted that the
MCI is also to ensure that all admissions in the medical colleges are
made by the competent admitting authorities, within the annual intake
capacity sanctioned for each medical college by the MCI. Furthermore,
the learned counsel submitted that they are adhering to the directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the provisions of Graduate
Medical Education Regulation, 1997, the admissions to graduate
medicine course every year shall be done through NEET under the
overall supervision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India.
9.1.b) She contended that the petitions were not maintainable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
as there cannot be any fundamental right available to any institution
to conduct counselling. She added that the State Government or the
Authority Designated by the State Government shall conduct common
counselling and forward a list of students for admissions to the
respective colleges. She emphasized that legality and validity of
common entrance test followed by a centralized counselling to be
conducted by the State for admission to medicine courses is no more
res integra.
9.1.c) In support of her contentions, the learned counsel drew
the attention of this Court to the following decisions:
a)Modern Dental and Research Centre
vs. State of M.P. 2016 (7) SCC 353
b)T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of
Karnataka 2002 (8) SCC 481
c)P.A. Inamdar & Others Vs. State of
Maharastra 2005 (6) SCC 537
d)State of Maharastra V. D.y.Patil
Vidyapeeth and others 2016 (9) SCC 401
e)State of Kerala Vs. T.P. Roshna 1979
SCC 580
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
f)MCI V. State of Karnataka 1998 (6)
SCC 131
g)Dr.Preeti Srivastava V. State of M.P.
h)Dr.Narayan Sharma & Another V. Dr.
Pankaj Lehkar & Others 2000 (1) SCC 44
i)State of Punjab V. Dayanand Medical
College [2001 (8) SCC 664]
j)State of M.P. & Others V. Gopal D.
Tirthani & Others [2003 (7) SCC 83
h)Harish Verma & Others V. Ajay
Srivastava & Another [2003 (8) SCC 69
9.1.d) She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre as
stated supra, wherein the Court had relied upon the case of this Court
in TMA Pai and the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar's case as cited
supra, wherein it has held that holding of a Common Entrance Test for
admission to MBBS/BDS course in Government, as well as Private
Medical and Dental Colleges followed by a centralized counselling to be
conducted by the State, does not in any manner abridge the
fundamental rights of the private institution, including the minority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
institution to administer and manage their institutions. At this
juncture, she made a note that prior to introduction of Regulation 5A
of MCI Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997, the medical
colleges particularly, private medical colleges used to conduct their
own counselling. In order to curb the malpractices adopted by the
medical colleges and ensure complete transparency in the admission
process, the respondent under Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956 and
the Central Government vide Gazette notification dated 10.03.2017
had introduced Regulation 5A for admission to Graduate Medicine
courses. In Modern Dental college case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court made it mandatory that admissions are to be made through a
centralized counselling process, which has to be conducted by the
State Government and also pleased to cancel the admissions made in
furtherance of the counselling conducted by the private medical
college, which decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Maharastra V. D.Y.Patil Vidyapeeth and Others
reported in 2016 (9) SCC 401.
9.1.e) She contended that the present petitions are contrary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
the statutory, mandatory and binding regulations framed by the MCI
with prior approval of the Government of India, as well as contrary to
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9.1.f) She highlighted the salient features of MCI by submitting
that MCI is a statutory authority created and constituted by the
Central Government under an Act of Parliament, namely, IMC Act,
1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of
maintenance of highest standard of medical education. She further
submitted that the crucial and significant aspects of medical education
which were observed in MCI V. State of Karnataka were re-
emphasized by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava as stated supra, wherein in paragraph
57 it has held as under:
“.... 57.
"The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has
constituted the Medical Council of India as an
expert body to control the minimum standards of
medical education and to regulate their
observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council
has power to prescribe the minimum standards of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
medical education. It has implicit power to
supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards
for admission into medical institutions. Thus there
is an overall invigilation by the Medical Council to
prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for
medical courses". These observations would
apply equally to postgraduate medical courses.
We are in respectful agreement with this
reasoning ....”
9.1.g) Moreover, she submitted that by Section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 with the prior approval of the Central
Government, the MCI had framed the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Regulation (Amendment) 2010 and Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulation (Amendment) 2010 inter-alia providing that admissions to
MBBS and Post Graduate Medical Courses shall be on the basis of a
common entrance examination i.e., NEET, which regulation was
challenged by the Christian Medical College Vellore Association vs.
Medical Council of India & Anotherand the same was allowed, for
which, the Central Government had filed a petition to review the said
order and it was allowed on 11.04.2016, setting aside the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
dated 18.07.2013 in CMC, Vellore Association case as stated supra,
which affirms common entrance for medical courses.
9.1.h) In furtherance, she submitted that through Indian Medical
Council (Amendment ) Ordinance, 2016, Section 10D was introduced
in IMC Act, 1956. Section 10D of the IMC Act, 1956 reads as under:
10D.[ Uniform entrance examination
for undergraduate and postgraduate
level. [Inserted by Act No. 39 of 2016.]-
There shall be conducted a uniform
entrance examination to all medical educational
institutions at the undergraduate level and post-
graduate level through such designated authority
in Hindi, English and such other languages and in
such manner as may be prescribed and the
designated authority shall ensure the conduct of
uniform entrance examination in the aforesaid
manner:Provided that notwithstanding any
judgment or order of any court, the provisions of
this section shall not apply, in relation to the
uniform entrance examination at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
undergraduate level for the academic year 2016-
17 conducted in accordance with any regulations
made under this Act, in respect of the State
Government seats (whether in Government
Medical College or in a private Medical College)
where such State has not opted for such
examination.]
9.1.i) Section 33(mb) of the IMC Act has been inserted vide
amendment dated 04.08.2016 which provides the MCI to make
regulations with previous permission of the Central Government for
providing the designated authority, other languages and the manner of
conducting the uniform entrance examination to all medical institutions
at the Undergraduate and Postgraduate level. The relevant portion of
the provision is extracted hereunder:
...
(mb)the designated authority, other
languages and the manner of conducting of
uniform entrance examination to all medical
educational institutions at the undergraduate
level and postgraduate level;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
...
9.1.j) Regulation 4 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Examination specifies the minimum eligibility criteria for the admission
to First Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Course
and Regulation 5 provides the procedure for selection of candidates to
MBBS Course and Regulation 5(5)(I) provides that there will be a
single eligibility cum entrance examination namely, National Eligibility
cum Entrance Test – NEET for every academic year under the
Superintendence, direction and control of the Central Board of
Secondary Education which will be under overall supervision of Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.
9.1.k) She further referred that Regulation 5A of the Regulations
on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 provides a common counselling
for admission to MBBS course in all medical educational
institutions/colleges on the basis of merit as secured by the candidates
in the NEET, whereas Regulation 5A(2) provides that Director General
of Health Services shall conduct the counselling for 15% All India
Quota seats of the contributing States and Regulation 5A(3) provides
that the State Government/Union Territory shall conduct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
counselling for admission to MBBS course in All Medical Educational
Institutions in a State/UT ,including those established by the Central
Government, State Government, Deemed University, Trust, Society or
a Company / Minority institution/corporation under the control of the
State/UT.
9.1.l) She relied upon the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dar Us Slam Educational Trust case as stated supra,
wherein the Court has directed that the counselling for all MBBS seats
available in the country shall be conducted and in respect of the said
directions, Regulation 5A has been further amended.
9.1.m) She further argued that any admission to MBBS course in
contravention of the minimum requirements as stipulated in the
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 is not a valid
admission.
9.1.n) At this relevant point of time, the learned counsel
submitted that the last date for admission to the MBBS Course for
2017-18 was 31.08.2017 and the circular dated 25.08.2017 was sent
stating that the details of admitted candidates to be filled through MCI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
software till 08.08.2017. She further continued that upon verification
of the petitioners' college list with the CENTAC list, some names were
not found place which have been identified in the order of MCI dated
21.11.2017. Hence, the Executive committee was directed to initiate
action against the violators and decided to discharge those candidates,
who have not been admitted through common counselling and the
petitioner's institutions were directed to file their compliance report of
their order. In pursuant to that, the Director of Health Services,
Puducherry and Health Secretary, Puducherry were directed to cancel
those admissions. In view of the same, the Government of Puducherry
vide letter dated 06.12.2017 in respect of Sri Venkateswara college
submitted that out of 95 students mentioned by MCI, 55 were
sponsored by them and one through Court order in W.P.No.35923 of
201 and also sent a letter dated 30.01.2018 informing that the
explanation furnished by the petitioner college/Sri Venkateswara
Medical College was not acceptable which is in violation to the
statutory regulations. Likewise, the petitioner institution/Sri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical College was also directed by by the MCI to
discharge 41 students which was followed by the consequential
orders/communication dated 06.12.2017, 18.01.2018 and 22.01.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
9.1.o) She emphasized that counselling is an integral part and
adjunct of the admission process and complete transparency in the
counselling is to ensure that only meritorious students are admitted in
medical colleges and also common counselling will benefit the students
at large as they are saved from burden of applying to several medical
colleges and attending several counselling. She urged that neither the
vacant seats were informed to general public nor counselling was
conducted, which shows flaw in the admission process. Thus, she
opposed the petitions filed by the petitioner(s) to set aside the
impugned order of the MCI dated 21.11.2017 and prayed this Court to
dismiss the Writ Petitions.
10. The averments put forth by the
respondent/Pondicherry University in the counter affidavit is
as follows:
In W.P. 11995 of 2018:
10.1. The MCI has directed the petitioner to discharge MBBS
students not admitted through CENTAC for the academic year 2017-18
for which the Health & Family Welfare Services Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Puducherry directed the petitioner institution/Sri Venkateswara Medical
College to discharge 38 students, whose admissions were in violation
to the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 for the academic
year 2017-18 and to submit a compliance report. The petitioner has
challenged the order dated 21.11.2017 of the respondent/MCI. The
respondents stated that the admission of students should be done
according to the norms of the respondents/MCI, Health & Family
Welfare Services Department, Puducherry and CENTAC and that any
violation of these conditions would invalidate the admission of
students. The petitioner college is informed that any violation of these
conditions would result in other actions as specified in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's directions. The respondent instructed the petitioner
college to strictly adhere to the admission and fee structure in
accordance with the Government of India, Government of Puducherry,
University norms and CENTAC.
10.2. The petitioner college is well aware that any violation of
the conditions imposed by the respondents would invalidate the
admission of students. The respondent is bound to follow the norms of
the respondents namely, MCI, Health & Family Welfare Services
Department, Puducherry and CENTAC for the admission of MBBS & PG
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Courses.
In W.P. 12629 of 2018:
10.3. The petitioner herein/Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical
College seeks to approve the admission of 41 students, who were
discharged by the MCI/second respondent's order dated 21.11.2017
and admitted to the First Year MBBS Course under the Management
Quota for the academic year 2017-18.
10.4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Pondicherry
University argued that the Pondicherry University is a Central
University created by an Act of Parliament (No.53 of 1985), with the
President of India as the Visitor and the Vice-Chancellor as the
Principal Executive and Academic officer. The University has a
perpetual succession and a common seal and the Registrar is the
designated authority to represent the University. The University of
Pondicherry, a part of the Government of Puducherry, is responsible
for regulating admission for the MBBS course. The University follows
the instructions of the Medical Council of India (MCI) and follows the
guidelines of the MCI, Government of Puducherry and CENTAC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Pondicherry University grants recognition to students based on the
verification of certain documents, such as Qualified Education
Certificates, NEET qualification results, CENTAC admission order and
the direction of the MCI/DCI/Government of Puducherry.
10.5. The Medical Council of India (MCI) has directed
Pondicherry University to discharge MBBS students, who are not
admitted through CENTAC for the academic year 2017-18. The
respondent/Secretary to Government (Health), Puducherry has
directed the college to discharge 41 students, who have been admitted
in violation of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 for
the academic year 2017-18. Their recognition will be considered only
after the approval of the Medical Council of India.
10.6. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 21.11.2017,
06.12.2017, 18.01.2018 and 22.01.2018, stating that the MCI and
Secretary to Government (Health)/respondents are the competent
authorities to conduct counselling for admissions to MBBS and PG
courses. The list of MBBS students admitted through the respondent
CENTAC and approved by the respondent (MCI) could only be
accepted and recognized as admissions were to be made through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
common counselling conducted by the designated authority of the
respondent CENTAC as per the norms. The respondents stated that
the petitioner College is affiliated with the respondent University and
must adhere to the norms of the respondents viz., MIC, Secretary to
Government (Health), Puducherry, CENTAC and Pondicherry
University. Any violation of these conditions would invalidate the
admission of students and result in other actions as specified in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directions. The respondent has instructed the
petitioner College to adhere strictly to Government of India,
Government of Puducherry, CENTAC and University norms.
10.7. The learned counsel also submitted that the
respondent/MCI is the competent authority to conduct counselling for
admissions to MBBS and PG Courses. However, admissions to the
respondent/Pondicherry University can only be accepted and
recognized, if the list of MBBS students admitted through CENTAC and
approved and recognized by the respondent/Secretary to Government
(Health), Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
10.8. The Admission Authority for MBBS courses is the MCI,
Director of Health Service, Government of Puducherry and CENTAC,
with the Medical Council of India (MCI) as the apex body for regulating
admission. Pondicherry University is responsible for checking eligibility
criteria and following the instructions of the MCI, Government of
Puducherry and CENTAC. He contended that the petitioner is aware of
the fact if any violation of these conditions, would invalidate the
student's admission.
In W.P.No.12506 of 2018:-
10.9. There is no direct role for Pondicherry University on the
process of admission. Pondicherry University issues the recognition
order to the students on verification of the following
documents/Certificate for checking the eligibility criteria.
1)Qualified Education Certificates (12th & 10th
Mark Sheets);
2)NEET qualification result/Ranking;
3)CENTAC Admission order and Total list; and
4)Direction of MCI/DCI/Govt. of Puducherry for
admission issues and thereafter on fulfillment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
the eligibility criteria as stated above,
recognition is granted by this respondent to the
students accordingly.
10.10. The learned counsel for the respondent/Pondicherry
University stated that the respondent (MCI) vide order bearing
No:MCI-34(MC-UG)/2017-18/155462 dated 21.11.2017, directed the
respondent college/Sri Venkateswara Medical College Hospital &
Research Centre to discharge MBBS students, who are not admitted
through CENTAC for the academic year 2017-18. Based on the
respondent/MCI order, the Health & Family Welfare Services
Department, Puducherry/ respondent vide Notice dated 06.12.2017
directed the respondent college to discharge the petitioners, who have
been admitted in violation of the Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 1997 for the academic year 2017-18 and to submit a
compliance report on or before 11.12.2017, without fail. In respect of
the above, the consequential order was issued by the
respondent/Pondicherry University on 18.01.2018 to the respondent
college informing that on verification of forms and original certificates
submitted by the respondent college, it is found that the admission of
38 students is in violation to the Graduate Medical Education
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Regulations, 1997 and the Pondicherry University/respondent's
conditions of affiliation. The Pondicherry University/respondent has
directed the respondent college to submit their explanation in this
regard on or before 31.01.2018. The above said order dated
21.11.2017 of the MCI/ respondent, is challenged by the petitioners in
this Writ Petition.
10.11. The Pondicherry University stated that the admission of
the students shall be done only according to the norms of the
respondents/MCI, Health & Family Welfare Services Department,
Puducherry and CENTAC. The respondent college was made aware that
any violation of these conditions, would invalidate the admission of
students together with such other action as deemed fit and proper as
specified in the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This
respondent has instructed the respondent College that admission and
fee structure should be strictly in accordance with Government of
India, Government of Puducherry, University norms and CENTAC.
10.12. The respondent/Pondicherry University submitted that the
respondent/Health & Family Welfare Services Department, Puducherry
is the competent authority to conduct the counselling for admissions to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
MBBS & PG Courses. As far as the respondent University is concerned,
the list of MBBS students, who were admitted through CENTAC and
approved by the respondent/MIC could only be accepted and
recognized, as admissions were to be made through common
counselling conducted by the designated authority/CENTAC as per the
MCI norms.
10.13. Since the admissions of the students in question were
done without adhering to the norms and regulations of the Graduate
Medical Education, the learned counsel submitted that the petitions
filed by the colleges and students, are liable to be dismissed.
11. Considered the rival submissions made by the respective
learned counsels on either side and also perused the entire materials
available on record.
Discussions:
12. On a careful analysation of the cases reveals that the
admissions of the candidates in MBBS Course in the petitioners'
colleges/institutions have been done only through the merit list of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
MBBS/BDS Courses Merit (2017-18) All India Quota (including
Puducherry U.T.) furnished by the CENTAC which has been
substantiated by the merit list submitted by the petitioners after
following due process of the norms and regulations. The cardinal
aspect is to be viewed is that after completion of the admissions
procedures and the students being attending their classes, that too, in
a professional course, the MIC had passed the impugned order of
discharge dated 21.11.2017, neither providing any opportunity nor
seeking any explanation and without proper verification from the
concerned institutions and students' whose admissions were in
question, which is very mortal to the students, especially, rather than
others.
13. In the present cases on hand, it is crystal clear that MIC had
passed the impugned orders by comparing the list of CENTAC with that
of the admission list of the petitioners, without enquiring about the
procedure adopted by the CENTAC.
14. Apparently, it is seen that the names of the candidates
identified in the impugned orders of the MIC were only admitted in the
institutions as per the procedure prescribed by the Rules and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
Regulations, as well as the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. The learned counsel has rightly cited the interim order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akshita Singh's case as
stated supra, wherein it has been held that if vacancy persist even
after exhausting 1:10 ratio, then liberty is granted to get into the
larger NEET list to admit the students.
15. It is seen in the present cases, due to vacancies arises after
1:10 ratio merit list exhausted, the petitioners/institutions sought for
the larger NEET Merit list from the CENTAC and all those students
identified in the impugned orders of the MIC, are NEET qualified and
no student has been admitted beyond the last cut off date for
admission and the institutions have not admitted any student on its
own, depriving the right of any meritorious student. It is predominant
to note that the admissions of students in question were admitted
from the list of NEET 2017 qualified merit candidates, who also had
applied through the CENTAC under Management quota and the same
were downloaded from the CENTAC web-site.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
16. It is relevant to point out that the impugned order passed by
the MIC in W.P.No.11995 of 2018 shows that the MIC without
application of mind had passed the order as it was stated that the
institution has filed petition in W.P.No.23810 of 2017 seeking a
direction to the respondents to forthwith release the entire NEET rank
list for filling up the remaining vacancies in their college for the year
2017-18 which was closed on the ground that the entire list had
already been released and thereafter on 31.08.2017, they have
admitted the 38 students from the list furnished by the CENTAC. In
the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12629 of 2018 in consequence to
the order dated 21.11.2017 of MIC, the Under Secretary to
Government of Puducherry and Registrar, Puducherry University had
also passed the impugned orders/communication dated 06.12.2017,
18.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 respectively, without affording any
opportunity or seeking any explanation for their acts and not bothering
about the hardships that would be caused to the affected students
pursuant to the impugned orders/communication.
17. At this stage, this Court has to see the crucial aspect of the
career of the students, that too, noble professionals and their role to
mankind. Taking into account, the welfare of the students, who are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
pursuing the course, which is paramount to be considered as it would
not only affect their career but also hinder them to fulfill their goal and
ambition in their life. After completion of the MBBS admissions and
commencement of the course, the impugned order dated 21.11.2017
was passed by the MCI in discharging the students without proper
appreciation of facts. Due to this, the students are the sufferers and
forced to face lots of hardships. At this point of time, it is to be noted
that the petitions were filed way back in the year 2018 and this Court
had granted an order of interim stay of the impugned order of MCI and
the identified students in the impugned orders were permitted to
continue their course and now they have completed their MBBS degree
and would have enrolled them as professionals. Now, the question of
discharging the students identified in the impugned orders of the MCI,
is unjustifiable. Viewed in all perspective, the orders impugned by the
respondents concerned in these Writ Petitions, are liable to be set
aside.
18. In view of the above intricate and elaborate discussions of
the matter and the foregoing reasons, this Court with a good
conscience, equity, fair play and in the interest of justice, allows the
Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.11995 & 12629 of 2018. Consequently, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
impugned orders of the MCI dated 21.11.2017 and the consequential
orders/communication dated 06.12.2017, 18.01.2018 and 22.01.2018
respectively, are hereby set aside and the MBBS admissions of the
candidates identified in the impugned orders dated 21.11.2017 of the
MCI, is hereby confirmed.
19. In view of the order passed in W.P.Nos.11995 & 12629 of
2018, the petition filed by the petitioners/students in W.P.No.12506 of
2018 challenging the impugned order of the MCI dated 21.11.2017, is
allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are
closed, if any. There shall be no orders as to costs.
21.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Order: Speaking/Non-Speaking
NCC : Yes/No
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Services,
New Delhi- 110 011.
2.The Secretary,
Medical Council of India
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110 077.
3.The Secretary to Government (Health),
Chief Secretariat (Health),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605 001.
4.The Under Secretary to Government (Health).
Chief Secretariat (Health),
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605 001.
5.The Director,
Directorate of Health &
Family Welfare Services (DHFWS),
Victor Samuel Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
6.The Convener,
Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC),
PEC Campus, ECR Road,
Pillaichavadi,
Puducherry-605 104.
7.The Registrar,
Pondicherry University
Kalapet,
Puducherry-605 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DP
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.Nos.11995, 12506 & 12629 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.13974, 14650 & 14754 of 2018
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
