Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Monika Ranka & Ors vs Medical Council Of India & Ors

Supreme Court4 September 2008J.M. Panchal · P. Sathasivam · K.G. Balakrishnan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a medical college has admitted students in violation of the prescribed 50% marks requirement in the entrance examination—but the students have completed one year of study in good faith, having not been informed of their entrance examination marks, and were not themselves responsible for the irregular admission—the court may, as a matter of discretion, permit the students to continue their course and have their first year results declared, notwithstanding that the admission was found to be illegal and irregular. The management of a medical college that admits students below the prescribed entrance examination cutoff shall, as a remedial measure, have its sanctioned seats reduced by an equal number for the following academic year.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5518-5519 OF 2008(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NOS.17990-17991 OF 2008)
MONIKA RANKA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITHCIVIL APEAL NOS.5520-5521 OF 2008(@ SLP(C)NOS.17995-17996 OF 2008)
ORDER

No orders on the application for impleadment and deletion of the

name of respondent.

Exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.

Leave granted.

The appellants in these appeals are admitted into the 1st year

M.B.B.S.Course in 2006-2007 in R.D.Gardi Medical College, Ujjain. The

appellants have joined the said course and have appeared for the 1st year

M.B.B.S.Course examination. Meanwhile, the Medical Council of India has

sought information from the college regarding the eligibility of the students

admitted to this course and it was found that about 20 students who had

scored 50% and above marks in the 10+2 examination had not secured 50%

marks in the entrance examination conducted by the Association of Private

Dental and Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants herein 2

contended that they 3

were under the impression that they had acquired the requisite marks and

the marks secured by them in the entrance examination were not made

known to them at the time of admission and, therefore, they are not to be

blamed for the irregular admission, if any, had taken place. The High Court

considered this aspect and held that the admission of these students was

illegal and irregular and their studies were directed to be terminated.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals were filed.

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Additional

Solicitor General for Medical Council of India.

In the Regulation published it was stated that the candidates should

have secured more than 50% marks in the entrance examination. There is

nothing on record to show that these appellants were informed of the marks

secured by them in the entrance examination. As these appellants have

already completed one year of their course, equities are in favour of the

appellants. But however, we maintain the judgment of the High Court, as

regards the principle laid down, but we direct that these appellants may be

allowed to continue their M.B.B.S.Course as a special case and their results

of the 1st year M.B.B.S.Course may also be declared so that they may

continue with their studies.

The management of the R.D.Gardi Medical college was not justified in

giving admission to these students. Certainly, they must be aware of the

fact that the candidates should have secured at least 50% marks in the

entrance examination but the 4

learned senior counsel appearing for the college says that they were not

aware of the marks secured by these candidates as the entrance examination

was held by a different association as the marks were not furnished to them

by the association. However, as the admission is found to be irregular,

equal number of students shall be reduced from the management quota for

the year 2009-10.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

...............CJI.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

.................J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI;

4TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free