Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Medical Council Of India
v.
Manas Ranjan Behera & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal Nos. 7134-35 of 2009 in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008 | 26-10-2009
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 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 Judgment, 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.
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 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 Judgment, 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.
Advocates List
For the Appellant Abhinav Mukerji, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents Amarendra Bal, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Vinod Tiwari, J.P.N. Gupta (for K.L. Janjani), Jana Kalyan Das, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Eq Citation
(2010) 1 SCC 173
[2009] 15 SCR 450
JT 2009 (13) SC 588
2009 (10) UJ 4769
2009 (13) SCALE 438
2010 (1) SCJ 595
LQ/SC/2009/1954
HeadNote
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
