INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 03-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 647
647
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND
RESEARCH CENTRE
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 867 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 – r.
12(8)(a) – Allotment for admission in the last round of counselling
(Mop up round)– r.12(8)(a) providing that vacant seats which arise
due to candidates in mop-up round not taking admission or
submitting resignation after taking admission, not to be included in
college level counselling – Constitutional validity – Held: Object
of insertion of r.12(8)(a) was to ensure that admission to medical
institutions are made strictly in accordance to merit as the
Government noticed that lesser meritorious candidates were getting
better colleges/subjects – According to r. 12(8)(b), those students
who do not join after being allotted a seat through mop-up round
would automatically be declared ineligible for the next round of
counselling – They would not be entitled for admission to any other
medical/dental colleges – Measure taken by the Government of
proscribing the managements from filling up those seats that fell
vacant due to non-joining of the candidates in mop-up round is an
excessive and unreasonable restriction – Right to admit students
which is a part of the management’s right to occupation u/Art.
19(1)(g) stands defeated by r.12(8)(a) as it prevents them from filling
up all the seats in medical courses – Moreover, seats being kept
vacant results in huge financial loss to the management of the
educational institutions apart from being a national waste of
resources – It is detrimental to public interest – Thus, the policy of
not permitting the managements from filling up all the seats does
not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by
r.12(8)(a) – Classification of seats remaining vacant due tonon-
joining may be based on intelligible differentia but it does not have
any rational connection with the object sought to be achieved by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
r.12(8)(a) – Applying the test of proportionality, the restriction
imposed by the Rule is unreasonable – Thus, r.12 (8)(a) is violative
of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and
19(1)(g).
Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical
Council of India and Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 627; T.M.A.
Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl.  SCR 587; State
of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC
517 : [2006] 3 SCR 396; Kerala State Beverages
(M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710;
Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC
386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; District Central Co-
operative Bank V. Coimbatore District Central Co-
operative Bank Employees Association and another
(2007) 4 SCC 669; Modern Dental College and
Research Centre & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; M.R.F. Ltd. v.
Inspector Kerala Govt. (1998) 8 SCC 227 : [1998] 2
Suppl.  SCR  632 – referred to
R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103 (Can.SC) – referred to
Proportionality and Principled Balancing by Aharon
Barak, 4 Law & Ethics Human Rights, 1 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(2017) 8 SCC 627
Referred to
Para 10
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587 
Referred to
Para 12
[2006] 3 SCR 396 
Referred to
Para 15
(2019) 9 SCC 710
Referred to
Para 16
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693 
Referred to
Para 17
(2007) 4 SCC 669
Referred to
Para 17
[2016] 3 SCR 579  
Referred to
Para 20
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 632 
Referred to
Para 20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 867
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2020 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in WP No. 14274 of 2020.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 868 And 869 of 2021
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv, Siddharth R. Gupta, Nishit Agrawal,
Manu Maheshwari, Harsh Mishra, Ms. Namisha Chadha, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Amalpushp Shroti, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted.
1. We had heard the above set of Appeals and passed an order on
03.02.2021 as follows:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we declare
Rule 12 (8) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha
Pravesh Niyam, 2018 as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
We direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to initi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.