Medical Council of India Vs. Manas Ranjan Behera & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7134-35 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30068-30069 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.10.2008 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008]
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30068-30069 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.10.2008 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008]
Petitioner: Medical Council of India
Respondent: Manas Ranjan Behera & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7134-35 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30068-30069 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.10.2008 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008]
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30068-30069 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.10.2008 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008]
Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 26, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Ms.Surbhi Mehta, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Amarendra Bal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Vinod Tiwari, Mr. J.P.N. Gupta (for Mr. K.L. Janjani), Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, Advocates for the Respondent(s).
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Ms.Surbhi Mehta, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Amarendra Bal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Vinod Tiwari, Mr. J.P.N. Gupta (for Mr. K.L. Janjani), Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, Advocates for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Direction of High Court to admit 12 students after the cut off date – In Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India, Apex Court directing adherence of time schedule fixed. Held in view of the order, High Court’s order cannot be sustained. Since these students are eligible and due to unprecedented situation could not secure admission, admission is given to them.
Direction of High Court to admit 12 students after the cut off date – In Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India, Apex Court directing adherence of time schedule fixed. Held in view of the order, High Court’s order cannot be sustained. Since these students are eligible and due to unprecedented situation could not secure admission, admission is given to them.
Cases Reffered:
1. Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and others [JT 2005 (1) SC 304]
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order 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 [JT 2005 (1) SC 304 : 2005 (2) SCC 65], this Court directed that all the 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 Judgement, we had also indicated, ‘Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.’
3. 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 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.
4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
***************
1. Leave granted.
2. The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order 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 [JT 2005 (1) SC 304 : 2005 (2) SCC 65], this Court directed that all the 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 Judgement, we had also indicated, ‘Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.’
3. 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 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.
4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
***************
