MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus MADHU SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 11-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 
v. 
MAOHU SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 
[RUMA PAL AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Education-Higher Education-Admission to medical colleges-Mid 
stream admission-Per111issibility of-High Court directing 111id stream 
C admissions-On appeal held, mid stream admission not to be permiued as it 
would be against the spirit of statutes governing medical education-Statutorily 
prescribed time schedule would get affected-Thus High Court erred in granting 
111id stream admission-Indian Medical Council Act 1956-Medical Council 
of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997-Medical Council 
of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. 
D 
State Board conducted examinations for admission into MBBS 
course for 1997-1998 session. Combined merit list for MBBS and BOS 
course was published. Respondent No.I was not selected for MBBS course, 
but option was given to join BDS Course. She accepted the option and 
joined BDS course. After the first counseling some seats in MBBS course 
E fell vacant. Two students admitted to BDS Course filed petition praying 
for a direction to the Controller of Examination to admit them against 
the vacant seats in MBBS course. The petition was allowed. Five more 
students admitted to BDS course filed a Writ Petition making identical 
prayer which was allowed. In appeal Division Bench of High Court upheld 
F the order with the direction that if any objection was taken by appellants-
Council(MCI) to the admissions in MBBS course, such decision should be 
given binding effect. MCI refused admission on the ground that it would 
amount to increasing the intake capacity and would be contrary to the 
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Controller of 
Examination cancelled the admissions of four students including that of 
G respondent No.I and they were shifted back to BDS course. Aggrieved, 
respondent No.I filed a Writ Application which was allowed on the ground 
that the vacancies remained unfilled due to lapse on the part of Controller 
of Examination or MCI and it was directed that respondent No.I should 
be allowed to complete MBBS course to which she was admitted. Hence 
H the present appeal. 
228 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 1·. MAOHU SINGH 
229 
MCI contended that the directions given by High Court .are contrary A 
to the scheme of the Act since it would mean that a candidate would be 
permitted to take admission to a course of a fixed duration just before 
completion thereof. It was further contended that by admitting students 
mid-stream, the statutorily prescribed time schedules get affected and it 
is not fair either to the students getting admission or to the institution. 
Respondent No.I contended that there was nothing wrong in mid-
stream admissions and even if there was fixed time schedule, extra classes 
B 
can be taken by the teachers to meet the deficiency in attendance. Also 
leaving seats unfilled is not good for the country as eligible candidates 
would be deprived of pursuing the medical studies and it will be a loss to C 
the national exchequer. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If any student is admitted after commencement of the 
course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule. D 
There would be increase in the number of seats for the next session to 
accommodate the students who are admitted after commencement of the 
course for the relevant session. Plea that with the object of preventing loss 
of national exchequer such admissions should be permitted cannot be 
accepted since that would be against the spirit of governing statutes. Also 
the suggestion of taking of extra classes is not acceptable. Time schedule E 
is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to study 
and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and 
the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling requisite 
number of days would be harmful to the students' physical and mental 
capacity to study. However, there is a necessity for specifically providing F 
the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which 
admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be 
granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for 
commencement of the course. (244-G, H; 245-A, B, GI 
1.2. In view of the above, there is no scope for admitting students G 
mid-stream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes

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