Professional Examination Board M.P. & Anr. Vs. Prashant Agrawal & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4329 of 2001
Civil Appeal No. 5973 of 2001
Petitioner: Professional Examination Board M.P. & Anr.
Respondent: Prashant Agrawal & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4329 of 2001
Civil Appeal No. 5973 of 2001
Judges: RUMA PAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 09, 2002
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Medical Council of India Regulations
Regulations 4, 5 with M.P. Pre-medical Test Rules, 2000 – Rules 2.2.2 and 2.5.3 – Constitution – Article 226 – Admission – Candidate qualifying common entrance test and wait listed – Yet, admission refused as not possessing 50% marks in qualifying exams for C.E.T – Criteria – If refusal was invalid. Held that on reading the rules and regulations, state was entitled to frame rules and provide the double hurdle criteria. University had no option but to follow MCI regulations. Hence, admission was rightly denied. Case law discussed.
Held:
From a reading of rule 2.5.2. it is clear that, in what appears to be narrowing-down on the basis of merit process the requirement of a particular percentage in the quali-fying examination cannot be avoided. Under the PMT rules, 2000, the first requirement to be fulfilled by any can-didate seeking to obtain admission in the MBBS course according to the regulations and rules is that the candidate must have atleast passed the qualifying examination. The second require-ment is that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with the particular percentage prescribed. The decision in Preeti Srivastava’s case (JT 1999 (5) SC 498) does not in any way prohibit the state government from framing rules which provide for the “double hurdle procedure” as envisaged in the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Lavu Narendranath and Ors (Supra). On the other hand in view of the regulations framed by MCI, as laid down in Preeti Srivastava the universities have no option but to follow the regulations so framed. (Para 10)
Cases Reffered:
1. Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (JT 1999 (5) SC 498) (Para 9)
2. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath (1971 (3) SCR 699) (Para 7)
2. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath (1971 (3) SCR 699) (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The issue in these appeals is as to the interpretation of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) relating to the admission and selection of students to the medical cours-es, as adopted by the state of Madhya Pradesh in ‘The Pre-Medical Test- 2000 Rules’
2. The issue has arisen in connection with the refusal to grant admission to the respondent no.1 despite his having successfully taken the common entrance examination and despite his securing a place in the waiting list. The reason given by the appellants for refusing to grant admission to the respondent no.1 has been put forth as the respondent’s ineligibility to have sat for the common entrance examination in the first place. According to the appellants the regulations of the MCI as well as the rules of the state – provide that merely taking the common entrance examina-tion successfully was insufficient to ensure admission. It was a further requirement that the candidate should have qualified academically by having obtained 50% in his higher secondary exami-nation or equivalent in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 had not obtained 50% in his higher secondary examination.
3. The relevant regulations of the MCI are regulation 4 and 5. Regulation – 4 prescribes the eligibility condition for admission to the medical courses. Amongst the eligibility criteria is the requirement “that he/she has passed qualifying examination as under”. The five separate “qualifying examinations” have been indicated in sub-clause (a) of clause-2 of regulation-4. We are concerned with the first qualifying examination so indicated. It is set out in sub-clause (a) as follows:
(a) the higher secondary examination or the Indian school cer-tificate examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher secondary examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of study comprising of physics, chemistry, biology and mathemat-ics or any other elective subject with English at a level not less than the core course for English as prescribed by the Na-tional Council for Educational Research and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3 years educational structure as recom-mended by the national committee on education;
Note: where the course content is not as prescribed for 10+2 education structure of the national committee, the candidates will have to undergo a period of one year pre-professional train-ing before admission to the medical colleges:”
4. Regulation 5 provides for the selection of students. Criteria have been laid down which are required to be adopted uniformally throughout the country. Separate provisions have been made for admission in the states having only one medical college and one university/board/examination body and the states having more universities/boards/examination bodies conducting the qualifying examination. A separate provision has also been made in respect of an institution of all India character. We are concerned with the second and third categories for the purpose of this case. Both these categories provide for taking the common competitive entrance examination of all candidates. Clause-5 of regulation 5 provides:
“To be eligible for competitive entrance examination, the can-didate must have passed any of the qualifying examinations as enumerated under the head note “eligibility criteria”;
Provided also that-
(i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology taken together at the qualifying examina-tion;
(ii) In case of admission on the basis of a competitive entrance examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology taken together, both at qualifying and competitive examinations;
Provided further that in respect of candidates belonging to schedule caste/schedule tribe and other backward classes (OBCs) the marks obtained be read as 40% instead of 50%.”
5. It is clear from a reading of clause-5 that the eligibility criteria referred to in regulation – 4 merely indicate the quali-fying examinations which would enable the candidates to sit for the competitive examination. Regulation – 4 demarcates the broad base while specifying which of those persons within such broad base can at all sit for the common entrance examination.
6. The Madhya Pradesh Pre-Medical Test, 2000 Rules (hereinafter referred to ‘as P.M.T. 2000 rules) have followed regulations 4 and 5 of the M.C.I. regulations in rule 2.2.2. and rule 2.5.2, the first rule being a material reproduction of regulation – 4 of the MCI regulation and the second being in substance a reproduc-tion of regulation -5.
7. The language of the regulation-5 and rule 2.5.2. make it quite clear that only those persons who had passed the qualifying examinations with the level of marks in the subjects as prescribed, could at all sit for the competitive entrance exami-nation. This short-listing or pre-screening would then be fol-lowed by a competitive entrance examination on the result of which the merit and subsequent admission of the successful candi-dates would be determined. This form of admission has been recog-nised in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath1 :
“Obtaining 50% of the marks at the qualifying examinations was the first hurdle to be crossed by any candidate before he could submit an application for admission into a medical college. The government which ran the colleges had the right to make a selec-tion out of a large number of candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own which was not against any law. Merely because they tried to supplement the eligibility rule by a written test in subjects with which the candidates were already familiar, their action cannot be impeached nor was there anything unfair in the test prescribed. The test prescribed by the government must be considered in the light of a second hurdle for the purpose of a screening to find out who of all the candi-dates applying should be admitted and who should be rejected.”
8. In this case, as already noted, the respondent had not obtained the requisite 50% and over marks in physics, chemistry and biolo-gy when he took his 10+2 examinations in 1996. Nevertheless he was allowed to sit for the competitive examination for the pre-medical test in 1999. He was wait listed but not selected. Then the P.M.T. rules, 2000 were framed by the state in keeping with the M.C.I. regulations wherein the precondition of obtaining at least 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology for taking the competitive examination was introduced. The respondent impugned the P.M.T. rules, insofar as it sought to debar those candidates who had not obtained the qualifying marks in the qualifying examination from sitting in the competitive examination. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent sat for the entrance examination without, as it appears, any protest on the part of the university. The respondent qualified and it was only at the stage of counselling that the respondent was informed that he could not be placed for admission into any medical college because he was ineligible to have sat for the competitive exami-nation. The respondent filed an application for interim relief in the pending writ petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the interim application as well as the writ petition by the judgment which is now impugned before us. The High Court was of the view that the rules prescribing eli-gibility criteria did not require the further qualification of minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. Ac-cording to the High Court this rule having stood unamended, amounted to allowing persons who did not have the qualifying marks in the qualifying examination to sit for the common en-trance examination. The rules were read as if there were two modes of entry into the MBBS course in all cases namely (1) the qualifying academic criteria and (2) the common competitive examination.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that the High Court has ignored the regulations and the rules and erred in doing away with the requirement of 50% quali-fying marks in the qualifying examination. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has reiterated the reasoning of the High Court and has submitted that the basis for selection is ultimately the common entrance examination and if the candidate is successful in the common entrance examination it would be an anomaly to deny the candidate admission merely on the basis of a requirement which did not form part of the eligibility criteria. A reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.1 which has emphasised the need and the rationale behind the holding of a common entrance examination for the pur-pose of admission to the MBBS course.
10. In our view, there may be some ambiguity in rule 2.2.2 of the P.M.T. rules, 2000 as to the requirement for admission into the MBBS course. However, from a reading of rule 2.5.2. it is clear that, in what appears to be narrowing-down on the basis of merit process the requirement of a particular percentage in the quali-fying examination cannot be avoided. As we see it, under the PMT rules, 2000, the first requirement to be fulfilled by any can-didate seeking to obtain admission in the MBBS course according to the regulations and rules is that the candidate must have atleast passed the qualifying examination. The second require-ment is that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with the particular percentage prescribed. Those candidates who fulfill the first and second criteria can then sit for the competitive examination. The first two requirements are relevant only for the purpose of determining whether the can-didate can sit or is eligible for taking the common entrance examination. Of course actual admission to the college is made on the basis of the results of the common entrance examination and does not depend on the percentage that a candidate may have obtained in the qualifying examination. Nevertheless one has, to be qualified according to the rules to sit for the common en-trance examination. The decision in Preeti Srivastava’s case does not in any way prohibit the state government from framing rules which provide for the “double hurdle procedure” as envisaged in the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Lavu Narendranath and Ors (Supra). On the other hand in view of the regulations framed by MCI, as laid down in Preeti Srivastava the universities have no option but to follow the regulations so framed. The fact that the respondent successfully passed the common entrance examination despite does not prohibit the author-ities refusing him admission on the ground that he
was disquali-fied from taking the examination.
11. Rule 2.5.3. is relevant in this context. It provides :
“The director medical education will offer provisional admission to the selected candidates in medical colleges and the college of dentistry, Indore in accordance with the merit list. The admis-sion will be done through counselling conducted by the director, medical education. The eligibility of the admission including caste certificate will be verified before the actual admission given by the dean/principal concerned and, in case, a candidate does not fulfill all the requirements including the bond condi-tion laid down in rule 2.5.5. and/or is not found eligible due to any other reason he/she will not be given admission and the provisional offer of admission will be treated as cancelled.”
12. This rule envisages a situation where even after successfully taking the common entrance examination a candidate can be refused admission on the ground that he was not qualified to have taken the common entrance examination at all.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court erred in ignoring the express language of MCI regulation 5 and rules 2.5.2. and 2.5.3. of the PMT 2000 rules in arriving at its decision. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the im-pugned judgment is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
1. The issue in these appeals is as to the interpretation of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) relating to the admission and selection of students to the medical cours-es, as adopted by the state of Madhya Pradesh in ‘The Pre-Medical Test- 2000 Rules’
2. The issue has arisen in connection with the refusal to grant admission to the respondent no.1 despite his having successfully taken the common entrance examination and despite his securing a place in the waiting list. The reason given by the appellants for refusing to grant admission to the respondent no.1 has been put forth as the respondent’s ineligibility to have sat for the common entrance examination in the first place. According to the appellants the regulations of the MCI as well as the rules of the state – provide that merely taking the common entrance examina-tion successfully was insufficient to ensure admission. It was a further requirement that the candidate should have qualified academically by having obtained 50% in his higher secondary exami-nation or equivalent in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 had not obtained 50% in his higher secondary examination.
3. The relevant regulations of the MCI are regulation 4 and 5. Regulation – 4 prescribes the eligibility condition for admission to the medical courses. Amongst the eligibility criteria is the requirement “that he/she has passed qualifying examination as under”. The five separate “qualifying examinations” have been indicated in sub-clause (a) of clause-2 of regulation-4. We are concerned with the first qualifying examination so indicated. It is set out in sub-clause (a) as follows:
(a) the higher secondary examination or the Indian school cer-tificate examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher secondary examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of study comprising of physics, chemistry, biology and mathemat-ics or any other elective subject with English at a level not less than the core course for English as prescribed by the Na-tional Council for Educational Research and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3 years educational structure as recom-mended by the national committee on education;
Note: where the course content is not as prescribed for 10+2 education structure of the national committee, the candidates will have to undergo a period of one year pre-professional train-ing before admission to the medical colleges:”
4. Regulation 5 provides for the selection of students. Criteria have been laid down which are required to be adopted uniformally throughout the country. Separate provisions have been made for admission in the states having only one medical college and one university/board/examination body and the states having more universities/boards/examination bodies conducting the qualifying examination. A separate provision has also been made in respect of an institution of all India character. We are concerned with the second and third categories for the purpose of this case. Both these categories provide for taking the common competitive entrance examination of all candidates. Clause-5 of regulation 5 provides:
“To be eligible for competitive entrance examination, the can-didate must have passed any of the qualifying examinations as enumerated under the head note “eligibility criteria”;
Provided also that-
(i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology taken together at the qualifying examina-tion;
(ii) In case of admission on the basis of a competitive entrance examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology taken together, both at qualifying and competitive examinations;
Provided further that in respect of candidates belonging to schedule caste/schedule tribe and other backward classes (OBCs) the marks obtained be read as 40% instead of 50%.”
5. It is clear from a reading of clause-5 that the eligibility criteria referred to in regulation – 4 merely indicate the quali-fying examinations which would enable the candidates to sit for the competitive examination. Regulation – 4 demarcates the broad base while specifying which of those persons within such broad base can at all sit for the common entrance examination.
6. The Madhya Pradesh Pre-Medical Test, 2000 Rules (hereinafter referred to ‘as P.M.T. 2000 rules) have followed regulations 4 and 5 of the M.C.I. regulations in rule 2.2.2. and rule 2.5.2, the first rule being a material reproduction of regulation – 4 of the MCI regulation and the second being in substance a reproduc-tion of regulation -5.
7. The language of the regulation-5 and rule 2.5.2. make it quite clear that only those persons who had passed the qualifying examinations with the level of marks in the subjects as prescribed, could at all sit for the competitive entrance exami-nation. This short-listing or pre-screening would then be fol-lowed by a competitive entrance examination on the result of which the merit and subsequent admission of the successful candi-dates would be determined. This form of admission has been recog-nised in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath1 :
“Obtaining 50% of the marks at the qualifying examinations was the first hurdle to be crossed by any candidate before he could submit an application for admission into a medical college. The government which ran the colleges had the right to make a selec-tion out of a large number of candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own which was not against any law. Merely because they tried to supplement the eligibility rule by a written test in subjects with which the candidates were already familiar, their action cannot be impeached nor was there anything unfair in the test prescribed. The test prescribed by the government must be considered in the light of a second hurdle for the purpose of a screening to find out who of all the candi-dates applying should be admitted and who should be rejected.”
8. In this case, as already noted, the respondent had not obtained the requisite 50% and over marks in physics, chemistry and biolo-gy when he took his 10+2 examinations in 1996. Nevertheless he was allowed to sit for the competitive examination for the pre-medical test in 1999. He was wait listed but not selected. Then the P.M.T. rules, 2000 were framed by the state in keeping with the M.C.I. regulations wherein the precondition of obtaining at least 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biology for taking the competitive examination was introduced. The respondent impugned the P.M.T. rules, insofar as it sought to debar those candidates who had not obtained the qualifying marks in the qualifying examination from sitting in the competitive examination. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent sat for the entrance examination without, as it appears, any protest on the part of the university. The respondent qualified and it was only at the stage of counselling that the respondent was informed that he could not be placed for admission into any medical college because he was ineligible to have sat for the competitive exami-nation. The respondent filed an application for interim relief in the pending writ petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the interim application as well as the writ petition by the judgment which is now impugned before us. The High Court was of the view that the rules prescribing eli-gibility criteria did not require the further qualification of minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. Ac-cording to the High Court this rule having stood unamended, amounted to allowing persons who did not have the qualifying marks in the qualifying examination to sit for the common en-trance examination. The rules were read as if there were two modes of entry into the MBBS course in all cases namely (1) the qualifying academic criteria and (2) the common competitive examination.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that the High Court has ignored the regulations and the rules and erred in doing away with the requirement of 50% quali-fying marks in the qualifying examination. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has reiterated the reasoning of the High Court and has submitted that the basis for selection is ultimately the common entrance examination and if the candidate is successful in the common entrance examination it would be an anomaly to deny the candidate admission merely on the basis of a requirement which did not form part of the eligibility criteria. A reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.1 which has emphasised the need and the rationale behind the holding of a common entrance examination for the pur-pose of admission to the MBBS course.
10. In our view, there may be some ambiguity in rule 2.2.2 of the P.M.T. rules, 2000 as to the requirement for admission into the MBBS course. However, from a reading of rule 2.5.2. it is clear that, in what appears to be narrowing-down on the basis of merit process the requirement of a particular percentage in the quali-fying examination cannot be avoided. As we see it, under the PMT rules, 2000, the first requirement to be fulfilled by any can-didate seeking to obtain admission in the MBBS course according to the regulations and rules is that the candidate must have atleast passed the qualifying examination. The second require-ment is that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with the particular percentage prescribed. Those candidates who fulfill the first and second criteria can then sit for the competitive examination. The first two requirements are relevant only for the purpose of determining whether the can-didate can sit or is eligible for taking the common entrance examination. Of course actual admission to the college is made on the basis of the results of the common entrance examination and does not depend on the percentage that a candidate may have obtained in the qualifying examination. Nevertheless one has, to be qualified according to the rules to sit for the common en-trance examination. The decision in Preeti Srivastava’s case does not in any way prohibit the state government from framing rules which provide for the “double hurdle procedure” as envisaged in the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Lavu Narendranath and Ors (Supra). On the other hand in view of the regulations framed by MCI, as laid down in Preeti Srivastava the universities have no option but to follow the regulations so framed. The fact that the respondent successfully passed the common entrance examination despite does not prohibit the author-ities refusing him admission on the ground that he
was disquali-fied from taking the examination.
11. Rule 2.5.3. is relevant in this context. It provides :
“The director medical education will offer provisional admission to the selected candidates in medical colleges and the college of dentistry, Indore in accordance with the merit list. The admis-sion will be done through counselling conducted by the director, medical education. The eligibility of the admission including caste certificate will be verified before the actual admission given by the dean/principal concerned and, in case, a candidate does not fulfill all the requirements including the bond condi-tion laid down in rule 2.5.5. and/or is not found eligible due to any other reason he/she will not be given admission and the provisional offer of admission will be treated as cancelled.”
12. This rule envisages a situation where even after successfully taking the common entrance examination a candidate can be refused admission on the ground that he was not qualified to have taken the common entrance examination at all.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court erred in ignoring the express language of MCI regulation 5 and rules 2.5.2. and 2.5.3. of the PMT 2000 rules in arriving at its decision. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the im-pugned judgment is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
