DEEPA T.HOMAS & ORS. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 25-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 3 S.C.R. 11 
DEEPA T.HOMAS & ORS. 
v. 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2012) 
JANUARY 25, 2012 
[CYRIAC JOSEPH AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Education -
Medic<Jf Education -
MBBS course -
Admission - Irregular admission - Relief under Art. 142 of 
Constitution - Whether respondents including the MCI, the 
C 
University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi University, 
Kottayam should be directed to permit the appellants-students 
to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were 
admitted in the different Private Unaided Medical Colleges 
in Kera/a in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not D 
eligible for such admissions as per the Regulations of the 
MCI, but had satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in 
the "Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007" issued by the 
respondent-Medical Colleges - Held: The instant case is an 
eminently fit case for invoking Supreme Court's powers under 
E 
Article 142 of the Constitution - On the strength of the interim 
. orders passed by the High Court and subsequently by 
Supreme Court, the appellants continued their studies for 4~ 
years and appeared in the University examinations -
Although the admissions of appellants were jrregular as they 
F 
did not satisfy the requirement of securing not less than 50% 
marks in the GEE as prescribed in the MCI Regulations, in 
the special facts and circumstances, the appellants should be 
allowed to continue and complete their MBBS course and also 
permitted to appear in the University examinations as if they 
G 
had been regularly admitted to the course - Such an order 
is necessary for doing complete justice in the matter -
However, since irregular admissions were made by 
respondent-Colleges in violation of the MCI Regulations, 
11 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A though due to the mistake or omission in the Prospectus 
issued by the respondent colleges, they should be directed 
to surrender from the management quota, number of seats 
equal to the number of such irregular admissions - In facts 
and circumstances of the case, suggestion on behalf of MCI 
B to impose penalty on the Colleges not accepted -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. 
The appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake 
or omission crept in the "Prospectus for MBBS 
Admission, 2007" issued by the respondent-Medical 
C Colleges as regards the eligibility criteria for admission. 
When the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations 
insist on a minimum of 50% marks both in the qualifying 
examination and in the Competitive Entrance 
Exami~ation ('CEE') separately, the Prospectus did not 
D specify that separate 50% marks were required in the 
CEE also. Though the appellants secured more than 50% 
marks in the qualifying examination, they secured less 
than 50% marks in the CEE. Without noticing and without 
being aware of the difference between the MCI 
E Regulations and the Prospectus in respect of the 
eligibility criteria, the appellants took admission in the 
medical colleges. Immediately after the admission the 
colleges sent the list of admitted students and their marks 
to the MCI. There was no objection from the MCI and the 
F appellants continued their studies. However, several 
months thereafter, MCI directed the colleges concerned_ 
to discharge the appellants on the ground that they were 
not eligible for admission as they had secured less than 
50% marks in the CEE. Though the appellants and the 
G colleges represented to the MCI and requested to 
reconsider its decision, the MCI refused to change its 
stand. The appellants thereafter approached the High 
Court for redressal of their grievance and on the basis 
of interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ 
H petitions !iled by them, continued their studies and 
DEEPA THOMAS & ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 
13 
INDIA & ORS. 
appeared. i.n the examinations conducted by the 
A 
University. However, the writ petition!> filed by the 
appellants were ultimately dismissed by the High Court. 
The High Court held that the regulations framed by the 
MCI were mandatory in nature; that the admission of the 
appellants was irregular and the MCI was justified in 
B 
directing the colleges to discharge the appellants. 
Faced with the threat of discharge from the colleges, 
the appellants came up before this Court pleading that 
the indulgence shown to the students by this Court in the 
C 
Monika Ranka's case may be extended to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.