PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS.

A Committee recommended the names of the two appellants, declaring them to be eligible for getting admissions. More strangely, the Committee also notes that the fees from the candidates had been deposited and they could be given admission. Then, vide another letter dated 30th September, B 2006, the Dean of the College informed the Director, Medical Education that the two appellants have been given admission and the admission process for 50 seats had been completed. We must notice that there is nothing placed on the records of the Court as to what steps were taken by the Jagdalpur College C to inform all the other candidates of counseling on the last date. Also strange was the direction of the Directorate that the candidates should be informed on telephone. Even if this direction was of some content and meaning, there is still no · material to show how many candidates were actually informed D on the telephone that there would be counseling for two seats. Thus, the questions remain open, as to the reason for total abandonment of the procedure of informing all eligible candidates, by appropriate means, that two seats were available for admissions, who all had actually appeared for the counseling, how only two candidates who even according to the E State Government were not contacted on telephone, were alone present before the Committee and immediately found to be eligible for admission. This entire exercise smacks of arbitrariness, unfairness and is discriminatory ex facie. It is brought to our notice and is clear from the record that the F Respondent No.3, the Director of the Medical Education in Chhattisgarh, is the father of Akansha Adile, Appellant no.2 and that speaks volumes of how the admission had been granted to ·the two appellants.

38Copy pinpoint38. The methodology adopted and the manner in which admissions were given to the present appellants leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that this process was neither fair nor transparent. In fact, within a few hours, the entire process of admission was completed, indicating that the whole exercise was undertaken only with the object of granting admission to

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 823 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] the appellants, that too, as if no other candidates of merit were available for these two seats. This view is entirely substantiated by the records produced before us. The prescribed procedure for grant of admission was given a go by and the rule of admission on merit stood frustrated as a consequence of such admission process. One fails to understand why no preventive steps or efforts to fill the vacant seats were taken by any of the competent authorities involved in the entire process of selection and admission to MBBS courses. The students who had undertaken the PMT examination had been allocated seats in the college on 23rd August, 2006. Not even a single document c has been placed on record of this Court from 23rd August, 2006 to 29th September, 2006 showing efforts to fill up vacant seats. Everybody waits for the last date which, in fact, is the date for joining the courses and not admission, whereafter the entire machinery in the Centre, State Government and the college 0 acts so swiftly that within hours, the entire admission process is concluded to grant the admission to the appellants. It is a travesty of fairness and transparency that for 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College, the Directorate as well as the Committee constituted for counseling/selection could find only the candidates at Merit Nos. 3893 and 1614 suitable, completely ignoring all the candidates being higher in merit than these two appellants, who must also be waiting for admission to the MBBS course. Strangely, the merit ranks of these two appellants, as given in the letter of the DGHS dated 8th August, 2006 were 2196 and 2203 respectively. From whatever angle this case is examined, only one conclusion is possible and that is, that the allocation of seats was totally arbitrary and contrary to the procedure laid down. We also would like to make a clear mention of the displeasure of this Court to the three members of the Selection Committee who found only these two candidates eligible and fit to be granted admission to the MBBS courses on the last day for admissions. To say the least, this Committee acted in undue haste, in violation of the prescribed procedure of admission and certainly contrary to the judgments H

p. 824 Copy page pinpoint

A of this Court. We direct the Dean of the Jagdalpur College to convey the displeasure of this Court to the members of the Selection Committee and the same be placed on their respective service records.

39Copy pinpoint39. Now, we may come to the inquiry that was conducted 8 by a three member committee and which recorded the finding that we have already noticed in paragraph 13 of the judgment. This inquiry was initiated in furtherance to an application made under the Right to Information Act, regarding the letter dated C 8th August, 2006 according to which the admission in the Jagdalpur College, particularly to these two appellants, was made in an arbitrary and unfair manner. The stand of the Union of India before this Court is that the letter dated 8th August, 2006 was never issued by the DGHS and is a fabricated document. In face of that stand, we are unable to appreciate as to how the Inquiry Committee returned a finding that the admission to the two appellants was not given in furtherance to the letter dated 8th August, 2006, but validly granted on 30th September, 2006 instead. They were expected to examine this matter in greater depth and record proper findings. We also cannot understand as to how the-y have recorded that both the appellants got admission in the Jagdalpur College by State PMT merit. Their report does not even mention if they had verified the fact that notices had been issued to all the concerned persons on 30th September, 2006 and if other students had been contacted for intimation of counseling or if any effort was even made on 3oth September, 2006 or even prior thereto to put these two vacant seats on the internet or notice board of the colleges so as to enable the students of higher merit to seek admission to the MBBS course in the G Jagdalpur College. This aspect attains a greater significance in view of the fact that the seats were not allotted in the second counseling itself on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006. The Jagdalpur College, the Directorate of the State Government as well as the Union of India made no effort and did not act in coordination, H to allot these two seats to the candidates in accordance with

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 825 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

merit in the PMT. The finding recorded by the Committee A appears to be a mere eye-wash rather than a proper report upon examining the entire matter in its proper perspective. It was not only expected of the Committee to examine the documents which were made available to it, as is recorded in the report, but also to call for all such necessary documents B which were relevant and could have bearing on the reference made to it. The Committee has not even cared to know why everything was completed on 30th September, 2006 and how nobody else except these two appellants were available for admission from amongst candidates in the entire State. c

40Copy pinpoint40. Another aspect of this inquiry is that, even as on 30th September, 2006, nobody was clear as to which quota these two vacant seats belonged to. According to the State of Chhattisgarh, these two seats were part of the 15 per cent All India quota which stood surrendered after 23rd August, 2006. D According to the appellants, they were Central Pool quota seats which stood surrendered to the State on 30th September, 2006 only. According to the Union of India, they had not made any allotment to the appellants or anyone in the Jagdalpur College from the All India Quota, and even the code number given on E the 8th August, 2006 letter is wrong. If the Directorate, the Union of India and the Jagdalpur College itself were not ad idem as to which quota the seats belonged to and who was the competent authority to allot the seats, none of them had any business to allot these two seats in such an arbitrary manner. F Even now, there is no clarity as to how and under what quota the Jagdalpur College has granted admission to these two appellants. The inquiry report, in fact, does not help to resolve the issue and cannot, thus, form the basis of returning any finding in favour of or against any person. Ex facie, the findings G returned by the Inquiry Committee appear to be inconclusive, uncertain and vague. Be that as it may, there is no escape from returning the finding that admission of both the appellants was made in a most improper and arbitrary manner. The whole exercise was undertaken on 30th September, 2006 with only H

p. 826 Copy page pinpoint

A one aim in mind, i.e., that these two appellants have to be given admission in the Jagdalpur College.

41Copy pinpoint41. The Government of India, taking the view that these were All India Quota seats which had been wrongly allocated to these two appellants in a manner contrary to the relevant 8 Rules, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 2010, directed cancellation of the admissions of both the appellants. In furtherance to the letter issued by the Central Government, the State Government vide its letter dated 10th September, 2010, actually cancelled the admissions of both the appellants. c

42Copy pinpoint42. This cancellation was challenged by the appellants before the High Court, which allowed continuation of study under interim orders, though finally it dismissed the writ petitions filed by these appellants. At that time, they had already completed more than four years of the MBBS course to which they were admitted. Today, they have already appeared for their final examination.

43Copy pinpoint43. We are also in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court that the Jagdalpur College ought to have declared these two seats as being available for admission when the counseling was held on 22nd - 23rd August, 2006 and that there was violation of the basic principles of equality of opportunity and of equal consideration for allotment of seats. Candidates of higher merit stand excluded. Another challenge which has been raised on behalf of the appellants before us is that the order of cancellation dated 10th September, 2010 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to these two appellants and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside, being violative of principles of natural justice. It is, in fact, not in dispute before us that no specific notice had been given to the appellants before the impugned order was passed. We are of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine this submission in any greater detail because the appellants have now had two occasions to put forward their claim before the Court. The High Court has considered various

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 827 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] aspects of the case and has given a complete hearing to the appellants. We have also heard the appellants m great length and have examined their challenge to the order dated 10th September, 2010. No prejudice has been caused to them, inasmuch as they have pursued their studies despite cancellation of admission and have now been duly heard by the B High Court, as well as this Court. Hence, this ground of challenge does not, in any case, survive, particularly in view of the fact that we have also held that the admission to these appellants was given in a completely arbitrary and unfair manner. c

44Copy pinpoint44. The admission of the appellants was cancelled by the State Government which, even under the Rules, is the final competent authority for such purposes. In the present case, the mischief played by the concerned persons came to the notice of the Central Government which directed cancellation of the seats and required the State Government to act in accordance with law.

45Copy pinpoint45. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by way of last resort, advanced an argument that even if the admissions are found to be irregular by the Court, still, to balance the equities, the Court can direct surrender or creation of equal number of seats in the next academic year by the Jagdalpur College. Further, it is also contended that since the appellants have already completed substantial part of their professional course, it will cause serious prejudice and irreparable loss to them if their admissions are cancelled, particularly when the students are not at fault and it is the Jagdalpur College or the Directorate of the State Government which were instrumental in allotting two seats to these students. G To further substantiate this plea, another argument advanced is that in the Government Colleges, the admission fee is very low and the Government spends a considerable sum in imparting the medical education to the students of those H

p. 828 Copy page pinpoint

A colleges. Thus, even that expenditure of the State would be wasted if admissions were now cancelled.

46Copy pinpoint46. It was also argued with some emphasis that the appellants are not at fault. They had taken the entrance examination and were given seats by the concerned authorities. 8 Even if the authorities have committed some irregularity, the appellants should not be made to suffer at the very end of their professional course. To substantiate this premise, they relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of A. Sudha v. University of Mysore & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537, Amandeep C Jaswal v. State of Punjab (2006) 9 SCC 597, R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105 and Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & ors.(2011) 3 sec 617.

47Copy pinpoint47. We have perused the judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioners. Firstly, they were delivered on their own facts and the Court has not stated any absolute principle of law, which would operate as a valid and binding precedent. Secondly, in all these cases, the Court had returned the finding E that other authorities or rule-making bodies concerned were at fault and not the students. In the case of Chowdhary Navin Hemabhai (supra), the Court had noticed that the fault was of the rule making authority in not formulating the State Rules, 2008 in conformity with the Medical Council of India Regulations, F while in the case of A. Sudha (supra), the Court found that the Principal of the institute was at fault and he had made incorrect statements in writing, which were acted upon by the students bona fide.

48Copy pinpoint48. In the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that G the fault is attributed to all the stakeholders involved in the process of admission, i.e., the concerned Ministry of the Union of India, Directorate of Medical Education in the State of Chhattisgarh, the Dean of the Jagdalpur College and all the three Members of the Committee which granted admission to H

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 829 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] both the appellants on 30th September, 2006. But the students A are also not innocent. They have certainly taken advantage of being persons of influence. The father of the Appellant No. 2, Akansha Adile was the Director of Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time and as noticed above, the entire process of admission was handled through the B Directorate. The students well knew that the admissions can only be given on the basis of merit in the entrance test and they had not ranked so high that they were entitled to the admission on that basis alone. In fact, they were also aware of the fact that no other candidate had been informed and that no one was c present due to non-intimation. Out of favouritism and arbitrariness, they had been given admission by completing the entire admission process within a few hours on 30th September, 2006.

49Copy pinpoint49. Balancing of equities by the Court itself is inequitable. D Some party or the other would suffer a set back or adverse consequence from the order of the Court. On the one hand, if admissions are cancelled, the students who have practically completed their MBBS course would lose their professional education as well as nearly five years of their life spent in such education. If their admissions are protected, then the standard of education, the merit of the candidates and the desirability of the persons of higher merit becoming doctors is negated. The best solution to such problems is strict adherence to the time schedule, procedure for selection/admission and strict observance of the Medical Council of India Regulations, by all concerned. Once these factors are adhered to, not only would such situation not arise, but also it will prevent avoidable litigation before the Courts. The persons who violate the time schedule to grant admissions in an arbitrary manner and by colourable exercise of power, who are not adhering to Medical Council of India Regulations and the judgments of this Court, should be dealt with strictly by punishment in accordance with law, to prevent such mischief from repeating. In the present case, we are informed that the students have already sat for H

p. 830 Copy page pinpoint

A their final examination and are about to complete their courses. Even if we have to protect their admissions on the ground of equity, they cannot be granted such relief except on appropriate terms. By their admissions, firstly, other candidates of higher merit have been denied admission in the MBBS B course. Secondly, they have taken advantage of a very low professional college fee, as in private or colleges other than the government colleges, the fee payable would be Rs.1,95,000/- per year for general admission and for management quota, the fee payable would be Rs.4,00,000/- C per year, but in government colleges, it is Rs.4,000/- per year. So, they have taken a double advantage. As per their merit, they obviously would not have got admission into the Jagdalpur College and would have been given admission in private colleges. The ranks that they obtained in the competitive examination clearly depict this possibility, because there were 0 only 50 seats in the Jagdalpur College and there are hundreds of candidates above the appellants in the order of merit. They have also, arbitrarily and unfairly, benefitted from lower fees charged in the Jagdalpur College.

50Copy pinpoint50. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though we find no legal or other infirmity in the judgment under appeal, but to do complete justice between the parties within the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we would permit the appellants to complete their professional courses, subject to the condition that each one of them pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Jagdalpur College, which amount shall be utilized for developing the infrastructure in the Jagdalpur College.

51Copy pinpoint51. We have not and should not be even understood to have stated any precedent for the cases like grant of admission and leave to complete the course like the appellants in the present case.

52Copy pinpoint52. We are imposing heavy costs upon these appellants to ensure that such admissions are neither accepted nor granted leave to complete their medical courses in future.

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 831 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

53Copy pinpoint53. We would, thus, hereby issue directions on the one hand and order initiation of contempt proceedings against all the defaulting parties under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India. B ORDER:

Accordingly, we order as follows: -

1. Though, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the judgment of the High Court C does not suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to complete their MBBS course as general candidates in the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur, subject to their paying a sum o of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today.

2. In the event of default of payment or failure to file proof of payment in the Registry of this Court, not only will the present appeal stand dismissed on merits, but we also direct that the exam results of E the defaulting appellant will not be declared, they will not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by the Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India shall not register their names on the rolls maintained by it or the State Council, as the case may be. F

3. For the reasons afore-stated, if their admissions are cancelled, there being no claimants for these seats, the seats will go waste and the entire expenditure incurred by the State would also be G wasted. After so many years, it would be an exercise in futility to cancel their admissions, which, but for the interim orders, could be avoided. An undue advantage from the interim orders has accrued in favour of the appellants. H

p. 832 Copy page pinpoint

A With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit.

We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may 8 consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main petitions finally, subject to convenience of the Court. We may refer the dictum of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences c [(2004) 6 sec 76, para 14] in this regard.

4. We have categorically returned a finding that all the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities/colleges.

5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings against the following under the provisions of the Contempt of F Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the following, to show cause why they be not punished in accordance with law.

a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, ·union of India.

G b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education.

c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.

d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee.

H e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the Selection Committee.

PRIYA GUPTA v. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS. 833 [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection A Committee.

g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of India.

5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which B day the matter shall be listed before this Court. Registry shall maintain separate file for that purpose.

6. All concerned authorities are hereby directed to carry out the directions and orders contained in this judgment, c particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the academic year 2012-2013 itself.

54Copy pinpoint54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned authorities; forthwith, for strict compliance and adherence, D without demur and default.

55Copy pinpoint55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above directions. E D.G. Appeals disposed of.