Education Promotion Society For India vs Union Of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 747 OF 2019

EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND ANOTHER …PETITIONER(S)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner no.1 Society

which claims to represent a large number of educational

institutions including medical colleges running post­graduate

(P.G.) medical courses, has prayed that this Court may grant

extension of time to respective medical colleges/deemed

universities for carrying out counselling for P.G. courses since

large number of seats in these colleges are lying vacant.

2. Signature Not Verified Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for the Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR

petitioners urges that these colleges have spent a huge amount of Date: 2019.06.21 15:10:30 IST Reason:

money on the infrastructure of the colleges. He submits that

1 there is an acute shortage of doctors in India and, in fact, the

Union of India has permitted increase of seats in government

medical colleges without increase of infrastructure. According to

him, this shows that the intention of the State is to ensure that

more and more doctors pass out and treat the patients. He also

relied upon a large number of orders wherein extension has been

granted in granting admission in medical colleges in graduate

course, P.G. courses and super­speciality courses. He has

specifically drawn our attention to the orders passed by this

Court on 11.10.2017 in Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No.1043

of 2017 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.96448 of 2017 in

W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, wherein on the request of the Central

Government the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) was

permitted to hold mop­up counselling for 553 unfilled super­

speciality seats lying vacant. He submits that a similar order

may be passed in this case.

3. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing for the

Union of India has opposed the said application and submits that

the sanctity of the earlier orders passed by this Court in Mridul

2 Dhar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors1 ; Priya

Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.2 and Ashish

Ranjan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.3, will be

set at naught if the petition is allowed.

4. This Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) noted that there

was no consistency in fixing the time schedule for admissions to

medical colleges and discrepancies and irregularities in

maintaining a prescribed schedule were being exploited by many

private medical colleges by admitting undeserved students and

charging high fees. This Court referred to the schedules notified

by the Medical Council of India and directed strict adherence of

those schedules. This was reiterated in Priya Gupta’s case

(supra). In Ashish Ranjan’s case (supra), this Court specifically

gave its approval to the time schedule. The schedule as approved

by this Court provides that the declaration of result has to be

done by the end of January and the first round of counselling for

All India quota seats, deemed and central institutes has to be

completed by 24th March and state counselling should be

1 (2005) 2 SCC 65 2 (2012) 7SCC 433 3 2016 (11) SCC 225

3 completed by 5th April, second round of counselling by 12 th and

26th April respectively and mop­up round by 8th May for state and

the 22nd May for Deemed Universities and Central Institutes.

Last date of joining should be 31st May for deemed and central

institutes and 18th May for the states. We have been informed

that this date has been extended to 31 st May for states also. The

date was extended to 17.06.2019 for the State of Maharashtra,

vide order of this Court, due to certain issues specific to the State

of Maharashtra.

5. We have carefully gone through the orders relied upon by

the petitioners. Except the orders in M.A. No.1043 of 2017 in

I.A.No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, all the orders

are either state specific or college/university specific. They have

been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each

particular case and in most of the orders it is clearly mentioned

that the orders shall not be treated as precedent. As far as the

order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned it related to super­speciality

seats and this Court on the request of the Central Government

extended the date for counselling by 10 days from the date of the

order and further granted 4 days for the candidates to join. The

4 order also clearly states that it is only applicable to the said

academic year.

6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time

not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual

college or university but generally on the ground that a large

number of seats for the P.G. courses are lying vacant. It is stated

that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed

by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are

concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant. However, it is

important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are

in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95%

of the seats are lying vacant in non­clinical subjects. There is no

material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard

to the remaining 400­500 seats. This Court however can take

judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of non­

clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do

not want to do post­graduation in non­clinical subjects. Merely

because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to

grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up

vacant seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit

violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a

5 Pandora’s box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule

and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule

will be defeated.

7. We may note that in the schedule prescribed, there are

three rounds of counselling, the first round, the second round

and the mop­up round. The mop­up round was to be completed

by 31.5.2019 and if some seats remain vacant even after the

mop­up round it cannot be helped. Extension cannot be granted

just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any

other justification.

8. We find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly

dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

………………………………….J. (Deepak Gupta)

…………………………………J. (Surya Kant)

New Delhi June 21, 2019

6