Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Non Filling Of Medical Seats Is Not A Solution: SC Declares Rule 12 (8)(a) Of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam Unconstitutional

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
12 March 2021 6:04 AM GMT
Non Filling Of Medical Seats Is Not A Solution: SC Declares Rule 12 (8)(a) Of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam Unconstitutional
x

The Supreme Court held that Rule 12 (8) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 is unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.According to Rule 12 (8) (a), the vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level...

The Supreme Court held that Rule 12 (8) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 is unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

According to Rule 12 (8) (a), the vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counseling (CLC) being conducted after MOP-UP round.

The measure taken by the Government of proscribing the managements from filling up those seats that fall vacant due to non-joining of the candidates in mop-up round is an excessive and unreasonable restriction, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee observed.

In this case, the Writ Petitions filed by Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre and Arushi Mahant and Others challenging Rule 12 (8) (a) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. Before the Apex Court in appeal, it was contended that proscribing medical institutions from filling up seats which fall vacant due to candidates in the mop-up round not taking admission or candidates submitting resignation after taking admission amounts to an unreasonable restriction. The state justified the Rule 12 (8) contending that the same is made with the objective that less meritorious candidates do not steal a march over those who have higher merit.

The court noted that the professed object of Rule 12 (8) (a) is to ensure that admission to medical institutions are made strictly in accordance to merit as the Government noticed that lesser meritorious candidates were getting better colleges/subjects. "Therefore, seats that fall vacant due to non-joining or resignation of students who were allotted seats in mop-up round of counselling will not be included in the college level counselling. The result is such seats will remain unfilled.", the court noted.

The court also added that the medical colleges who have no part to play in the manipulation  are penalised by not being permitted to fill up all the seats.

"The right to admit students which is a part of the management's right to occupation under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India stands defeated by Rule 12 (8) (a) as it prevents them from filling up all the seats in medical courses. Upgradation and selection of subject of study is pertinent only to postgraduate medical course. In so far as undergraduate medical course is concerned, the upgradation is restricted only to a better college. Not filling up all the medical seats is not a solution to the problem. Moreover, seats being kept vacant results in huge financial loss to the management of the educational institutions apart from being a national waste of resources. Interest of the general public is not subserved by seats being kept vacant. On the other hand, seats in recognised medical colleges not being filled up is detrimental to public interest. We are constrained to observe that the policy of not permitting the managements from filling up all the seats does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a). The classification of seats remaining vacant due to non-joining may be based on intelligible differentia but it does not have any rational connection with the object sought to be achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a). Applying the test of proportionality, we are of the opinion that the restriction imposed by the Rule is unreasonable. Ergo, Rule 12 (8)(a) is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution", the court said while allowing the appeal.


Case: Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh [Civil Appeal No. 867 of 2021]
Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee
Counsel: Sr. Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Adv Siddharth R. Gupta and Adv Amalpushp Shroti, for the Appellants, AAG Saurabh Mishra, for the State of Madhya Pradesh assisted by Adv Sunny Chaudhary 
Citation: LL 2021 SC 156


Click here to Read/Download Judgment


Next Story