A
B
(2009] 15 S.C.R. 450
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
MANAS RANJAN BEHERA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7134-35 of 2009)
OCTOBER 26, 2009
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
c
Admission to medical courses -
Time Schedule
prescribed - High Court directing admission to students after
cut-off date - HELD: In view of directions of Supreme Court
that time schedule provided in Regulations to be strictly
adhered j.<YtSy all concerned, High Court should not have
0 passed the impugned order - However, it has been noticed
that the students concerned were eligible, and because of
unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission
within the prescribed time limit - Delay in giving admission
to them is condoned as a one time measure - However, it is
E clarified that the time schedule prescribed by the Court should
be followed strictly.
F
G
H
Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.
2005 (2) sec 65, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2005 (2) sec 65
relied on
para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7134-35 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .10 .2008 of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008.
Abhinav Mukerji, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia and
450
...
' ,,
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MANAS RANJAN
451
BEHERA & ORS.
"' ,,,
Surbhi Mehta for the Appellant.
Amarendra Bal, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr: Vinod Tiwari,
J.P.N. Gupta (for K.L. Janjani), Jana Kalyan Das for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
A
B
2. The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order
C
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa
directing the admission of 12 students after the cut-off date of
30th September of the concerned year. It may be noticed in
Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and others,
reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65, this Court directed that all the
D
parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as
regards admission to students in the Medical and Dental
colleges. In Direction-15 of paragraph 35 of the Judgment, we
has also indicated, "Time schedule provided in the Regulations
shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the
E
defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded
with."
In view of these directions, the High Court should not have
passed the impugned Order. However, we have noticed that
these 12 students were eligible and because of unprecedented
F
situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed
time limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them
as a one time measure. However, we clarify that these time
schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly.
•
.;
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
R.P.
Appeals disposed of.
G
Lex