K.S. BHOIR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 12-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

____..,_ -
K.S. BHOIR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
DECEMBER 12, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Medical Council Act, I956 : 
Sections IO-A and 33. 
One time increase in the admission capacity in Medical Colleges due to c 
extra ordinary situation-Mandatory to submit a scheme in compliance of 
Section JOA and Regulation framed under that Act-Non-submission-Effect 
of-Held, since no such scheme was submitted to Central Government and 
Medical Council had no opportunity to verify the sufficiency ~f .facilities/ 
requirements, the Central Government was justified in refusing the increase. 
D 
Constitution of India : 
Article 226-Powers under-The power conferred is to enforce rule of 
law to ensure that authorities act in accordance with law-Directions cannot 
be issued to an authority to act contrary to statutory provisions. 
E 
The Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test was con· 
ducted for admission to MBBS, BDS, BAMS etc_ In order to stop unfair 
means in the examination, the question papers were prepared in four 
versions. On the basis of result of the said examination, admission had 
F 
been given in various Medical Colleges as per merit. Some of the candi-
dates suspected that there was an error in the evaluation of biology paper 
in version one of the four versions and filed a writ petition under Article 
226 of the Constitution praying for re-evaluation of the biology paper of 
the said examination. The State Government on re-verification by Exam· 
G 
iners found that there were mistakes/errors in the model key answer sheets 
of that version. The respondent got re-evaluated all the answer sheets of 
that version and prt•pared revised merit list. The consequences of the 
revised list was that certain number of students from the said version who 
should have been admitted in the first instance but for wrong evaluation, 
H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
were to displace the students already admitted in various Colleges. To meet 
such an extra ordinary situation, the State Government wrote to the Ceo· 
tral Government for grant of one time increase in admission seats in 
MBBS and BDS Courses in various Medical Colleges in the State of 
Maharashtra, but the same was refused by the Central Government for 
B 
non-compliance of Section lOA and Regulations framed under Indian 
Medical Council Act, 1956. High Court while alllowing the writ petitions, 
issued several directions to accommodate those students who were dis-
lodged by the revised merit list. 
c 
In these appeals it was contended for the appellants that in view of 
the extra ordinary situation having arisen, it was incumbent upon the 
Central Government to have granted the one time increase; that proce· 
dure of Section 10-A of the Act would apply only to such a situation where 
Medical Colleges apply for regular and permanent admission capacity; 
that the Central Government acted illegally in refusing to grant permis· 
D 
sion for one time increase in admission capacity; that in view of extra· 
ordinary situation as noted by it the High Court ought to have issued 
directions to the Central Government to grant one time increase. 
E 
It was contended for the Central Government and Medical Council 
of India that the Central Government was fully justified in refusing to 
grant one time increase in the admission capacity. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I.I. A perusal ~f the provisions of Section lOA of the Indian 
F 
Medical Council Act read with regulations shows that it is mandatory on 
the part of the institution or management, desirous of increasing its admis· 
sion capacity in any course o! study, to submit a scheme complying with 
the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section lOA and requirement envisaged 
under the regulation. If any of the infrastructure facilities as required 
G 
either under Section 10(A)(7) or under the regulations are absent, it is 
open to the Central Government to refuse permission for increase in the 
admission capacity in any course of study in Medical College. The object of 
compliance of these requirements is to ensure the maintenance of higher 
standards of education. (600-F·H] 
H 
1.2. Further, sub-section (1) of Section lOA is a substantive provision 
.• 
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE 
595 
in itself and begins with non-obstante clause. It means there is a 
A 
prohibition in the matter of an increase in the admission capacity in a 
Medical College unless previous permi

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