TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0858/2008 Abhishek and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and others. Some of the undisputed details regarding the month/date(s) of RPMT -2008 and counselling for admission in M.B.B.S. which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy are as under: 26.2.2008 - RPMT -2008 was notified. Name of respondent No.5 Institution at Sl.No.10in anticipation of sanction of seats. June, 2008 - Result of RPMT -2008 declared.14th to 16th - Date of first counselling July, 2008.3.9.2008 - Date of Supreme Court order regarding allotment of seats to Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital within a week asper statement of the Addl. Solicitor General.16.9.2008 - Sanction of 150 seats by the Medical Council of India.23/24.9.2008 - Date of last counselling. Respondent No.5Institution did not participate in counselling.25 -28.9.08 - Date of admissions given by Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital on the basis of PC -PMT BDS as well as 10+2.29.9.2008 - Date of show cause notice issued by the State for taking students as per Ordinance272 and against direction of the Supreme Court not to change or tinker with and noncompliance with State action against the Institution will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge number of students applied for appearing in the RPMT -2008 generating legitimate expectation of admission in case the seats are sanctioned and they stand in merit in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 272 of the University, with the further mention that Ordinance 272(IV)(a)(i) categorically speak with regard to conducting pre -medical examination by the University. Accordingly, the University prepared the merit list of the successful candidates. The relevant ordinance 272(IV) of the University is as follows: IV Pre Medical Test. a. (i) All candidates except those belonging to categories (b) of Rule 2 will have to appear at the pre medical test to be conducted by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany in the manner to be decided by it. The candidates may obtain journal guidelines for the Pre Medical Test Examination and application form for appearing at the examination and the also application form for admission to the medical college from the Controller of Examinations, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur on payment of the amount prescribed by the University. Forms can also be had by registered post on paymentof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the action of the respondent Institution of admitting students through PC -PMT -2008 which was meant for BDS only, was not only contrary to Ordinance 272 but various judgments of the Supreme Court. 7. Ultimately , the University has stated that it is not liable for giving enrollment to such illegally admitted students and to take their examination. 8. The gist of the aforesaid submissions has been referred at pages 77, 78 and 79 of the reply filed by the University in Paras 18 and 19, which are as follows: 18. ...Meaning thereby the respondent No. 5 with the collusion of PCPMT Federation has admitted the students ignoring all canon of law, whereby not only the mandatory calendar decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar, has been flouted going beyond 30.09.2008 giving admission and moreover the merit has been ignored and all admissions have been done ignoring the provisions of Ordinance 272, of University of Rajasthan, whereas the Written Entrance Test is to be conducted by the State agency in order to ensure the admission in the medical colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan. Moreover PCPMT Federation seems to be a device to make the admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... students in that case had undertaken 1 year and a half of their course of study. Lastly, it was submitted by the State Government that the respondent Institution has committed grave illegality and violated not only Ordinance 272 and R.P.M.T. -2008 but has also acted contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. Paras 5,8 and 9 of the reply of State are as follows: 5.That pursuant to the notice dt.20.09.2008 a supervision team was found by the State Government to observe the counselling process of PCPMT for admission of students at the respondent college. The Supervision team found glaring irregularities in the admissions given by the respondent College. A copy of the report of the supervision team is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R -2. 8. That the Rajasthan University of health Sciences in its reply has stated that in the counselling held by the PCPMT Federation the representative/nominee of the Health University was not called. Meaning thereby that the respondent College with the collusion of PCPMT Federation has admitted the students ignoring the statutory provisions, whereby not only the mandatory calendar as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjali College has advertised on 26.9.2008 in the newspaper of M.P. and not in Rajasthan that even hold selection on the basis of marks of Senior Secondary Examination which is totally contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy and TMA Pai's case. 33. It is respectfully submitted that the inspection for grant of Letter of Permission for Establishment of New Medical College at Udaipur, Rajasthan by Geetanjali Foundation was carried out by the Council Inspectors on 16th and 17th April 2008 and the inspection report was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council for its reconsideration. It is further submitted that the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 12.05.2008 where the members of the Adhoc Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also prsent took the following decision: The members of the Adhoc Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Executive Committee of the Council considered the Council Inspectors report (16th and 17th April, 2008) and decided to recommend to the Central Government to issue Letter of Permission for establishment of New Medical College at Udaipur, Rajasthan by Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ministry of H and FW is annexed herewith as Annexure R -4/8. 36. It is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent -MCI with reference to admissions of 1st year MBBS students made by various medical colleges/institutions for the academic year 2008 -09 send a letter dated 29.8.2008 requesting the Health Secretary and Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,Jaipur to provide the following information: (i) Ratio fixed by the State Govt. if any, for Govt. and Management quota for unaided self financing medical colleges for the academic year 2008 -09. (ii) List of minority as well as non -minority private medical college/institutions in the State. Copy of the letter dated 29.8.2008 of MCI is annexed as Annexure R -4/9. 10. Lastly, it was stated in para 48 of the reply that the facts and the submissions made by the Medical Council are required to be examined in accordance with the principles laid down in : AIR2003SC355 TMA Pai Foundation, 2005(6) SCC 537 Inamdar and : AIR2005SC666 Mridul Dhar v. UOI. In the event it is found that the admissions made by the respondent Institution are in violation of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.1.2009 are as follows: Order dated 12.12.2008 Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal. During the course of arguments, it transpires from the reply of the respondent State that it has sissued show cause notice to the respondent -institution, but the institution has not responded to the said show cause notice issued on 29.09.2008 (annexure -R/1) and 11.11.2008 (annexure R/3) followed by the reminder dated 27.11.2008. From the reply, it is also not clear that why the Government has not proceeded further ex parte in a matter where there is a prima facie violation of their guidelines of RPMT resulting in admission of less meritorious candidates in violation of the Ordinance 272 of the University of Rajasthan, despite grant of sufficient opportunity The learned Counsel for the petitioners are pressing urgency right from the beginning that the admissions of the students of 150 sanctioned seats are contrary to the said provisions of the Ordinance as well as Instruction Booklet, 2008 and according to which a written examination is to be held by the State and the seats are to be filled up from the students of the R.P.M.T. And who have been totally ignored. The Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector of Gitanjali Medical College Hospital, Udaipur (Rajasthan) has filed an application for the change of the advocate. For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed. The applications are disposed of accordingly. Mr. M.S.Bhatt is granted three days time to change the advocate. Put up on 19.01.2009 alongwith connected cases. Order dated 19.1.2009 Mr. Kumawat submits that he has filed the decision of the Government on 17.1.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the MCI and the University have also filed reply. Office is directed to place the same on record. Counsel for the University and the MCI are also directed to place the recommendations given to the State Government, on record. List on 22.1.2009 along with connected cases. Order dated 29.1.2009 Counsel for the State, Rajasthan University of Health Science and Medical Council of India are directed to give the copy of letter dated 17.1.2009 for seeking guidance from M.C.I. regarding filling of 117 seats from RPMT and recommendations of University and MCI to the counsel for the respondent No. 5. The Addl.Advocate General Shri Kumawat is further directed to apprise the court why the final decision has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the collusion of PCPMT Federation has admitted the students ignoring all cannons of law, whereby not only the mandatory calendar decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mridual Dhar, ha been flouted going beyond 30.09.2008 giving admission and moreover the merit has been ignored and all admissions have been done ignoring the provisions of Ordinance 272 of University of Rajasthan, whereas the Written Entrance Test is to be conducted by the State Agency in order to ensure the admission in the medical colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan. Finally, RUHS is of the opinion as under: Therefore, it will be justified that for the admissions made for the year 2008 -09 in the respondent Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur may be treated as irregular admissions. Letter dated 2.1.2009 (date wrongly mentioned as 2.1.2008 at the top) With reference to your above cited letter on the captioned subject, I am directed to state that the stand of the Council in the instant case has already been mentioned in the various affidavits in reply filed by the Council before the Hon'ble High Court in the present case till date. Your attention is invited to the following which is already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed andnon exploitative nor as per the policy/guidelines dated 14.5.2003 and also the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. It is the most humble submission of the answering Respondent that the Council would take necessary action, including issuing the discharge notices to the students admitted in contravention of the Regulations and the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court from time to time as per the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the present case. In view of the above, it is reiterated that the stand which can only be takenby the Council is to issue the discharge notice in respect of all the students admitted by the said college for the academic session 2008 -09 in 1st Year MBBS course. Minutes of the State filed on 17.1.2009 ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The counsel for the petitioners in order to substantiate their arguments have placed strong reliance on Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava : AIR2003SC3371 and Manish Ujjawal v. M.D.S.University 2005 (8) RDD 217 (SC). Although counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy and P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance Examination is still the well established mode of selecting the candidates on the basis of merit or the same is optional ? (3) Whether merit of the candidates selected through Common Entrance Examination under Ordinance 272 read with Regulation No. 5 of the MCI Regulations, 1997 can be allowed to be sacrificed by the un -aided Institutions conducting medical course (s),if no, then whether admissions are 'illegal' or 'irregular' ? (4) Whether the wrong doer or beneficiary of the wrong doer can claim equity ? 16. I have gone through the entire record of the writ petitions and carefully considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties with reference to the aforesaid core questions. Before proceeding further, I would like to quote relevant portion/clauses of the Information Booklet RPMT - 2008, wherein the name of Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital has been mentioned at Item No. 10 in anticipation of the sanction of the seats as the process was already initiated, and M.C.I. Regulation No. 5.The same are as under: Relevant portion of the Information Booklet RPMT -2008 For admission of candidates on seats in MBBS/BDS/.V.Sc. A.H. Courses in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical curriculum of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) Course until: 1. He/She shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st December, 2008 (D.O.B. 31st Dec.1991 or earlier). 2. He or she has passed the qualifying examination as under: The Senior Secondary Examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 after a period of 12 year study. The last 2 years study must comprise of Physics, Chemistry, Biology with English as compulsory subjects. Provided also that: In case of admission on the basis of competitive entrance examination the candidate shall have to obtain not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Zoology and Botany) taken together in the RPMT -2008 with at least 33% marks individually in each subjecton the result of which the candidate's admission of MBBS/BDS courses are regulated. (i) In respect of candidate belonging to SC/ST and OBC the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in RPMT -2008 shall be 40% instead of 50%. However, the candidate has to secure at least 33% marks individually in each subject for admission t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raduate admission Board consisting of all the Principals/Representatives of Institutions at Rajasthan University of health Science, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302 033. ii. Eligible candidates who have passed the State Pre Medical Test shall be called for interview by the Chairman of the Undergraduate Admission Board to appear before the board constituted by the State Govt. The presence of the candidate or his/her authorised representative at interview is essential. The physically handicapped candidates will have to appear in person and no authorised representative will be allowed in case of physically Handicapped candidate. The intimation of the interview to candidates shall be by way of a letter under postal certificate (UPC) through newspapers, other Media and through Medical College Notice Board. Format of authority letter is enclosed (Annexure -1). iii. The list of candidates called for interview will be put on the notice board of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur three days before the date of interview. The candidates found unsuitable by the Admission Board will be rejected. All the original certificates and marks sheets mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Biology taken together at the qualifying examination; (ii) In case of admission on the basis of a competitive entrance examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, both at qualifying and competitive examinations; Provided further that in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) the marks obtained be read as 40% instead of 50%. 17. In the State of Rajasthan, although there is one University but students from more than two examining bodies of 10+2 examination are passing their examinations and further there are 15 government/private colleges of medical courses, therefore, as per Regulation No. 5(2) competitive entrance examination is necessary. 18. Question No. 1 Whether the ratio of P.A.Inamdar (supra) is applicable in medical courses or the same are governed by the MCI Regulations, 1997, University Ordinance as well as policy of the State Government ? The judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 is virtually to sort out the ratio of T.M.A. Pai Foundation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mponents of 'right to establish and administer an institution', the State cannot interfere therewith. Upto the level of undergraduate education, the minority unaided educational institutions enjoy total freedom. 134. However, different considerations would apply for graduate and post -graduate level of education, as also for technical and professional educational institutions. Such education cannot be imparted by any institution unless recognized by or affiliated with any competent authority created by law, such as a University, Board, Central or State Government or the like. Excellence in education and maintenance of high standards at this level are a must. To fulfill these objectives, the State can and rather must, in national interest, step in. The education, knowledge and learning at this level possessed by individuals collectively constitutes national wealth. 135. Pai Foundation has already held that the minority status of educational institutions is to be determined by treating the States as units. Students of that community residing in other States where they are not in minority, shall not be considered to be minority in that particular State and hence their admissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admissions and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non -exploitative. The same principle applies to non -minority unaided institutions. There may be a single institution imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the test of being fair, transparent and non -exploitative. All institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the abovesaid triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit -based admissions and preventing mal -administration. The admission procedure so adopted by private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. The second question is answered accordingly. 138. It needs to be specifically stated that having regard to the larger interest and wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rishnan was specifically struck down. Vide para 45, Chief Justice Kirpal has clearly ruled that the decision in Unni Krishnan insofar as it framed the scheme relating to the grant of admission and the fixing of the fee, was not correct and to that extent the said decision and the consequent directions given to UGC, AICTE, MCI, the Central and the State Governments etc. are overruled. Vide para 161, Pai Foundation upheld Unni Krishnan to the extent to which it holds the right to primary education as a fundamental right, but the scheme was overruled. However, the principle that there should not be capitation fee or profiteering was upheld. Leverage was allowed to educational institutions to generate reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities which would not amount to profiteering. It was submitted that Islamic Academy has once again restored such Committees which were done away with by Pai Foundation. 143. The learned senior counsel appearing for different private professional institutions, who have questioned the scheme of permanent Committees set up in the judgment of Islamic Academy, very fairly do not dispute that even unaided minority institution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjected to similar restrictions which are found reasonable and in the interest of student community. Professional education should be made accessible on the criterion of merit and on non -exploitative terms to all eligible students on an uniform basis. Minorities or nonminorities, in exercise of their educational rights in the field of professional education have an obligation and a duty to maintain requisite standards of professional education by giving admissions based on merit and making education equally accessible to eligible students through a fair and transparent admission procedure and on a reasonable fee -structure. 151. On Question -4, our conclusion, therefore, is that the judgment in Islamic Academy, in so far as it evolves the scheme of two Committees, one each for admission and fee structure, does not go beyond the law laid down in Pai Foundation and earlier decisions of this Court, which have been approved in that case. The challenge to setting up of two Committees in accordance with the decision in Islamic Academy, therefore, fails. However, the observation by way clarification, contained in the later part of para 19 of Islamic Academy which speaks of quota and fixa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he marks obtained by them,not at the same qualifying examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying examinations held by different State Governments or Universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be blatantly violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Shri Chander Chinar Beda Akhara Udasin Society v. State of J K; It need not be pointed out that the percentage of marks secured by different applicants at different types of examinations at the higher secondary stage cannot be treated as uniform. Some of such examinations are conducted at the State level, others at the national level including the Indian School Certificate examination. The percentage secured at different examinations is bound to vary according to the standard applied by such examining bodies which is well known. As such a common entrance examination has to be held . Ravindra Kumar Rai v. State of Maharashtra 6.We may at the outset point out that inasmuch as there are three Boards in Maharashtra State which conduct the qualifying examination and inasmuch as there are several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashtra and its Medical Education Department to start the process for holding the Common Entrance Examination for admission to Medical Colleges in Maharashtra for the year 1998 and conduct the said Examination in accordance with the 'Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997' made by the Medical Council of India. Writ petition is allowed as stated above. 24. In Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2005SC666 the Supreme Court approved the time schedule prescribed by the Government in consultation with the representatives of the respective States and the Universities after the judgment in M.C.I. v. Madhu Singh (supra). As per para 11 the last date of admission in MBBS is 30th September of the respective year. Paras 10 and 35 of the same are as follows: 10. The directive dated 14 -5 -2003 also stipulates the cancellation of admission granted after the last date of closure of admission and warns the candidates of the consequences of taking admission after the last date for closure of admissions. Paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5 of the directive read as under: 8.4 In exercise of the powers conferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Medical Council of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down in the Regulations and noncompliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences. 5. All seats in All India Quota must be fully disclosed giving details of the date of recognition/renewal to DGHS before a date to be notified by DGHS and the same shall be duly published. 6. By 31st October, the State through Chief Secretaries/Health Secretaries shall file a report in regard to admissions with the DGHS giving details about the adherence to a time schedule and admission granted as per the prescribed quota. The recalcitrant States, particularly officers personally will have to face consequences for violation. 7. The DGHS shall file by 31st January, 2005 report in regard to feasibility of conducting counseling through the process of video conferencing. 8. The DGHS shall file report within three months on the aspect of Section 10 -A seats being subjected to 15 per cent All India Quota and about the increase of the quota from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. 9. The DGHS shall also file a report within three months on the aspect of constitution of high -power Committee/Ombudsman. 10. The seats allotted upto 15th July, shall also be subjected to respective Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the seats are lesser in number and the candidates are large in number, it would be in the interest of all the students and the Government to hold a Common Entrance Examination which have been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. : AIR1999SC2894 in P.G.Medical Course holding that the M.C.I. Regulations are mandatory. Relevant portion of paras 27, 28,and 57 of the same are as under: Entrance exmaination for postgraduate courses and qualifying marks 27. When a common entrance examination is held for admission to postgraduate medical courses, it is important that passing marks or minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for the examination. It was, however, contended before us by learned Counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh that there is no need to prescribe any minimum qualifying marks in the common entrance examination. Because all the candidates who appear for the common entrance examination have passed the MBS Examination which is an essential prerequisite for admission to postgraduate medical courses. PGMEE is merely for screening the eligible candidates. 28. ...A common entrance examination, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. There is, under the Act an overall vigilance 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. 26. MCI Regulations have been held to be mandatory in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP (supra) by the Constitution Bench, therefore, the Institutions are bound to follow the same. In the instant case, Regulation No. 5 holds the field. In one of the cases - N. Priyadarshini v. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai AIR 2005 Madras 315, the Tamil Nadu government decision of abolishing the Common Entrance Examination, 2005 has been held by the Madras High Court as illegal and unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary in the Wednesbury sense. Paras 60 and 82 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows: 60. We are further of the opinion that since the Medical Council Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... candidates who have secured marks less than the minimum prescribed by Regulation 9 framed by the Medical Council of India are struck down and set aside. The counselling shall have to be done afresh to the extent necessary. We are conscious of the fact that there would be some delay in commencement of post graduation studies and to some extet the 2002 and 2003 batches would overlap. However, that is a situation which cannot be voided. It is an inevitable consequence for which the successful candidates for the year 2002 and 2003 i.e. those who will be held entitled to admission in post graduation courses of studies consequent upon this judgment, cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. It will be for the State of Rajasthan, if necessary then in consultation with the Medical Council of India, to sort out the difficulties and to run the regular courses of the studies. 28. Here in the instant case, the notice of demand for justice has been given to the respondents prior to the last date of admission i.e. 30.9.2008 and some of the writ petitions have been filed prior to 30.9.2008 wherein interim order of reserving one seat has been passed but the other respondents have allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such type of students at the cost of meritorious students is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of treating un -equals equally. The answer to the question No. 3 is that the policy of the Government to hold the Common Entrance Examination for government as well as private un -aided medical institutions as regards 85% seats are concerned, is reasonable, fair, transparent therefrom mal administration and further in the interest of students and public, therefore, the same is valid. The admissions given by the respondent No. 5 Institution from PC -PMT, BDS and 10+2 examination are illegal not irregular. Q.4 Conduct of the Institution and Equity. 31. Here , the Institution acted with ulterior motive right from the date when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment for sanction of the seats and the order of sanction was issued on 16.9.2008 by adopting non -cooperative attitude for the simple reason to frustrate MCI Regulation No. 5 of MCI Regulations, 1997/Ordinance 272 and the policy of the Government and admit the students as per their choice at the cost of meritorious students of waiting list thereby cause injustice to meritorious studen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
