# RAJAN PUROHIT & ORS v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 11 S.C.R. 299
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-08-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2011
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajan-purohit-ors-v-rajasthan-university-of-health-science-ors-27998
- **Pages:** 61

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions:
A
B
Admission - In Private unaided Medical College - State c
Government decision to fill 85% of the MBBS seats through
State Pre-Medical Test 2008 (RPMT-2008) - No agreement
with the College to give admission on the basis of RPMT2008 - College filling 117of150 seats [i.e. 16 seats through
PCPMT (exam conducted by Private Medical and Dental 0
colleges of the State) and 101 seats on the basis of 10+2
exam] - The admission challenged by RPMT-2008 wait list
candidates claiming admission against 85% seats - Single
Judge of the High Court setting aside the admission directing
the college to fill up the seats by candidates in the RPMT2008 - Division Bench of the High Court upholding the order E
of Single Judge - On appeal, held: There was no agreement
by the college to admit on the basis of RPMT-2008 - The
college could not have been directed to fill up its seats
through RPMT-2008 - But the admission of 117 students was
contrary to clause (2) of Regulation 5 of MCI Regulations - It
F
was also not within the right of the College, under Article
19(1)(g) of Constitution as explained in *TMA Pai and **P. A
lnamdar cases - Since the candidates admitted by the
college were not at fault, in exercise of power u/Art. 142 of
Constitution, direction not to disturb their admission -
G
Direction is subject to the condition that the candidate would
pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs - Penalty imposed on the College
to surrender its 107 seats to State Government phase-wise
not more than 10 seats in any academic year - Regulations
299
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - Regulation 5(2) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(g) and 142.
Admission - In Medical College - College entering into
consensual arrangement with State Government to fill 85% of
8
MBBS seats by the students allocated by competent authority
- Filling the 85% seats in two rounds of counselling from
allocated students - Residual 21 seats filled by college on
its own (15 through Pre-Medical Test and 6 on the basis of
10+2 examination) - In another case Pre-Medical Test
C Candidates in waiting list challenging filling up of the abovementioned 6 seats wherein High Court did not disturb the
admission of the 6 students and also directed admission to
the petitioners therein - 21 students not allowed to appear in
exam - Present writ petition by the 21 students - Single Judge
of the High Court allowing petition of 15 students who were
D admitted through Pre-Medical Test - But dismissing the
petition of 6 students in view of order of Medical Council of
India discharging the 6 students from the course - Order
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - On appeal, held:
The Admission of the 6 students were in violation of
E Regulation 5(2) of MCI Regulations - Regulation 5(1) is not
applicable to State of Rajasthan because this State has many
Boards/Universities/Examining Body - The present petition
was also not barred by principle of res-judicata as the issue
in the present petition was not the issue in the previous
F petition - However, invoking powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, admission to 6 students not disturbed subject to
the condition that they would pay Rs. 3 lakhs - Penalty
imposed on the college to surrender the 6 seats to the State
Government - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
G 1997 - Regulations 5(1) and (2) - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - s. 11 - Principle of Res Judicata - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 142.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8142, 8143 and 8144 of 2011:
H
The medical college in question was a private
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
301
HEALTH SCIENCE
unaided non-minority college. It was yet to receive its
A
permission from the Government of India and affiliation
from the Rajasthan University of Medical Sciences.
Pursuant to a meeting regarding conducting of common
entrance test for admission to Medical and Dental
Colleges in the State of Rajasthan for the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,808 of 118,175. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39808 for what follows._

[2012] 11 S.C.R. 299
RAJAN PUROHIT & ORS.
v.
RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2011 Etc.)
AUGUST 30, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
A
B
Admission - In Private unaided Medical College - State c
Government decision to fill 85% of the MBBS seats through
State Pre-Medical Test 2008 (RPMT-2008) - No agreement
with the College to give admission on the basis of RPMT2008 - College filling 117of150 seats [i.e. 16 seats through
PCPMT (exam conducted by Private Medical and Dental 0
colleges of the State) and 101 seats on the basis of 10+2
exam] - The admission challenged by RPMT-2008 wait list
candidates claiming admission against 85% seats - Single
Judge of the High Court setting aside the admission directing
the college to fill up the seats by candidates in the RPMT2008 - Division Bench of the High Court upholding the order E
of Single Judge - On appeal, held: There was no agreement
by the college to admit on the basis of RPMT-2008 - The
college could not have been directed to fill up its seats
through RPMT-2008 - But the admission of 117 students was
contrary to clause (2) of Regulation 5 of MCI Regulations - It
F
was also not within the right of the College, under Article
19(1)(g) of Constitution as explained in *TMA Pai and **P. A
lnamdar cases - Since the candidates admitted by the
college were not at fault, in exercise of power u/Art. 142 of
Constitution, direction not to disturb their admission -
G
Direction is subject to the condition that the candidate would
pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs - Penalty imposed on the College
to surrender its 107 seats to State Government phase-wise
not more than 10 seats in any academic year - Regulations
299
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - Regulation 5(2) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(g) and 142.
Admission - In Medical College - College entering into
consensual arrangement with State Government to fill 85% of
8
MBBS seats by the students allocated by competent authority
- Filling the 85% seats in two rounds of counselling from
allocated students - Residual 21 seats filled by college on
its own (15 through Pre-Medical Test and 6 on the basis of
10+2 examination) - In another case Pre-Medical Test
C Candidates in waiting list challenging filling up of the abovementioned 6 seats wherein High Court did not disturb the
admission of the 6 students and also directed admission to
the petitioners therein - 21 students not allowed to appear in
exam - Present writ petition by the 21 students - Single Judge
of the High Court allowing petition of 15 students who were
D admitted through Pre-Medical Test - But dismissing the
petition of 6 students in view of order of Medical Council of
India discharging the 6 students from the course - Order
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - On appeal, held:
The Admission of the 6 students were in violation of
E Regulation 5(2) of MCI Regulations - Regulation 5(1) is not
applicable to State of Rajasthan because this State has many
Boards/Universities/Examining Body - The present petition
was also not barred by principle of res-judicata as the issue
in the present petition was not the issue in the previous
F petition - However, invoking powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, admission to 6 students not disturbed subject to
the condition that they would pay Rs. 3 lakhs - Penalty
imposed on the college to surrender the 6 seats to the State
Government - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
G 1997 - Regulations 5(1) and (2) - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - s. 11 - Principle of Res Judicata - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 142.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8142, 8143 and 8144 of 2011:
H
The medical college in question was a private
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
301
HEALTH SCIENCE
unaided non-minority college. It was yet to receive its
A
permission from the Government of India and affiliation
from the Rajasthan University of Medical Sciences.
Pursuant to a meeting regarding conducting of common
entrance test for admission to Medical and Dental
Colleges in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year
B
2008-2009, the college Chairman and Managing Trustee
gave a written undertaking that the college would admit
the students to the MBBS course only after getting
permission from the authorities concerned. The college
did not participate in another meeting wherein it was
C
decided that 85% seats of the medical colleges in the
State would be filled through Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test2008 (RPMT-2008) and 15% seats would constitute NRI
quota. Permission letter was granted to the college on 1609-2008 for establishment of the college with an annual
0
intake capacity of 150 students. The letter further
stipulated that the admission process was to be
completed within time schedule indicated in the
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
The college issued advertisement inviting application
E
for admission to MBBS course on the basis of PC-PMT
conducted by Federation of Private Medical and Dental
Colleges of Rajasthan and 10+2 examination. Last date
of receipt of application was stipulated to be 28-09-2008.
The college, out of 150 seats, filleq 16 seats through PCF
PMT and 101 seats were filled o,. the basis of 10+2
examination. The 23 seats of NRI quota were also filled
up by the college.
Some of the candidates, selected through RPMTG
2008 and were placed in waiting list, filed writ petition,
seeking their consideration for admission against the
85% seats of the 150 seats in the college, on the basis
of their merit in RPMT-2008. Single Judge ofHigh Court,
by interim order, reserved 10 seats for the writ petitioners
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 11 S.C.R.
A and by final order allowed the writ petition and directed
to hold counseling from the waiting list of students of
RPMT-2008.
The college as well as the students who were given
B admission by the college, filed appeals challenging the
order of the Single Judge. Division Bench of High Court
dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeals.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6210 and 6211 of 2012:
c
Pursuant to a consensual arrangement between the
State Government and the college in question, to fill 85%
of the MBBS seats by allocation of students by the
competent authority, the college filled up the seats in two
rounds of counseling from the candidates allocated by
0 the competent authority. The college issued an office
order that residual seats which remained vacant even
after the second round of counseling to be filled up by
an admission process, whereby preference would be
given to RPMT-2008 candidates and if the seats were still
vacant, the same to be filled up on the basis of marks
E obtained in 10+2 examination. Pursuant to the office
order, out of the 21 unfilled seats, 15 seats were filled by
the candidates selected in RPMT-2008 and 6 seats were
filled on the basis of 10 +2 examination.
F
When the 21 students were not allowed to take the
examination for the ,.BBS course by the authorities, they
filed writ petitions. Single Judge of High Court allowed
the writ petitions by the 15 students whose admission
was on the basis of RPMT-2008 but dismissed the petition
G of the 6 students whose admission was on the basis of
10+2 examination, in view of the order dated 04-02-2010
passed by Medical Council of India directing to discharge
the 6 students on the ground that they were not
candidates of RPMT-2008. The appeal of the college and
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
303
HEALTH SCIENCE
the 6 students was dismissed by Division Bench of the
A
High Court.
In appeal to this court, the appellants interalia
contended that as the admission of the 6 candidates was
earlier challenged in writ petitions by candidates who had
8
qualified in RPMT-2008 and the same was not disturbed
by the High Court and that order since obtained finality,
the Medical Council of India could not have passed order
discharging the 6 students from MBBS course.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Civil Appeal Nos. 8142, 8143 and 8144 of 2011:
c
1. There was no agreement between the College and
D
the State Government to admit students into its MBBS
course on the basis of RPMT-2008 and the finding of the
High Court in this regard is erroneous and the High Court
could not have directed the College to fill up its seats on
the basis of merit of students as determined in RPMTE
2008 as per the law laid down in *T.M.A. Pai Foundation
as explained in **P.A. /namdar. Hence, the direction of the
High Court to fill up the seats by students selected or wait
listed in the RPMT-2008 is set aside. [Para 30] [343-8-D]
F
2. The admissions of 117 students to the MBBS
course for the academic year 2008-2009 in the College were
contrary to clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations.The College was bound to follow the MCI
Regulations while making the admissions to the MBBS
G
seats. Even if the College was required to complete the
admission process by a particular date, it could not violate
the MCI Regulations on the ground that it had to complete
the admission process by that date. It is clear from the
provisions of Regulation 5 that the selection of students
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A to medical college is to be based solely on merit of the
candidate and for determination of the merit, the criteria
laid down in Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) will apply. Clause
(2) of Regulation 5 on which the MCI relied upon clearly
states that in States having more than one University/
B Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying
examination a competitive entrance examination should
be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may
be variation of standards at qualifying examinations
conducted by different agencies. The merit of the students
C who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the
College had to be uniformly evaluated by a competitive
entrance examination, but no such competitive entrance
examination had been held by the College between all the
candidates who had applied pursuant to the
0 advertisement. Therefore, there was a clear violation of
Clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations in
admitting the 101 students to the MBBS Course for the
academic year 2008-2009 by the College. [Paras 23, 24 and
30] [335-E-G; 336-E-G; 337-A·D; 343-B-D]
E
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors.
(1999) 7 sec 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249; State of M.P.
and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 83: 2003
(1) Suppl. SCR 797; Harish Verma and Ors. v. Ajay
Srivastava and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 69: 2003 (3) Suppl.
F SCR 833 - referred to.
3.1. The admissions were not within the right of the
College under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution as
explained by this Court in *T.M.A. Pai Foundation and
**P.A. lnamdar. In *T.M.A. Pai Foundation, this Court, while
G holding that a private unaided non-minority institution
has the right to establish and administer an educational
institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution also
held that such right will include the right to admit students
into the institution. The observations in para 58 of the
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
305
HEALTH SCIENCE
judgment of Kirpal, CJ. make it clear that students A
seeking admission to a professional institution were
required to be treated fairly and preferences were not to
be shown to less meritorious but more influential
students and greater emphasis was required to be laid
on the merit of the students seeking admission. In para
8
59, it has been further made clear that merit is to be
determined for admission to professional colleges, by
either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying
examination, or by a common entrance test conducted
by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges,
C
by government agencies. The judgment in *T.M.A. Pai
Foundation has been further explained by this Court in
**P.A. lnamdar and it has been held therein that that nonminority unaided institutions, like the minority unaided
institutions, have also the unfettered fundamental right to 0
choose the students to be allowed admission and the
procedure therefore, but the admission procedure so
chosen by the institution mm5t be fair, transparent and
non-exploitative. This Court has taken the further view
that all institutions imparting same or similar professional
education can join together for holding a common
E
entrance test satisfying the triple tests of the admission
procedure being fair, transparent and non-exploitative.
[Paras 19 and 20] [331-E-G; 332-E-H; 333-A-B-G-H]
3.2. The College admitted 16 students from the list of F
candidates selected in the PC-PMT 2008 conducted by
the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of
Rajasthan. The PC·-PMT 2008 did not call for any
applications from candidates for admission to the MBBS
course, but only for the BOS course. Moreover, the G
College had not been included in the brochure published
for PC-PMT 2008. Consequently, students, who may be
interested not in the BOS course but in the MBBS course,
could not have applied to take the PC-PMT 2008. As a
result, many meritorious students desirous of taking
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A admission in the MBBS course in the College could not
get an opportunity to participate in the PC-PMT 2008. The
~mission procedure adopted by the College was thus
not fair and transparent and fell short of the triple tests
laid down in **P.A. /namdar and such admission
B procedure was not within the fundamental right of the
College to admit students of its choice under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution as explained in *T.M.A. Pai
Foundation. [Para 21] (334-A-F]
3.3. The candidates, who had applied in response to
C the advertisement, had not passed the 10+2. examination
from the same Board or University but from different
Boards and Universities. If that be so, the merit of the
candidates who had applied in response to the
advertisement could not be evaluated by a uniform
D standard and could only be evaluated by a competitive
entrance examination of all these students who had
applied pursuant to the advertisement of the College. It
is not the case of the College that any competitive
entrance examination of all the students, who had applied
E pursuant to the advertisement, was held by the College
to determine their comparative merit. Hence, the principle
of merit as the basis for selection for admission in the
professional courses laid down by this Court in *T.M.A
Pai Foundation and as explained in **P.A lnamdar has not
F been followed. Thus, even as per the law laid down by
this Court in *T.M.A. Pai Foundation and **P.A lnamdar, the
College has not been able to establish that the
admissions of 117 students to its MBBS course for the
academic year 2008-2009 were within its right under
G Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution. [Para 22] [335-A-E]
H
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587; P.A.
lnamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 6
SCC 537: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 - followed.
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
307
HEALTH SCIENCE
4. Since the College violated clause (2) of R&gulation
A
5 of the MCI Regulations in making the admissions of 117
students to the MBBS course for the academic year 20082009 and the admissions were not within the right of the
College under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as
explained in *T.M.A. Pai Foundation and **P.A. lnamdar.
B
the College must, therefore, suffer some penalty as a
deterrent measure so that it does not repeat such
violation of the MCI Regulations in future. Moreover, if no
punitive order is passed, other colleges may be
encouraged to violate the MCI Regulations with impunity. c
In the present case, there were as many as 117
admissions contrary to the provisions of clause (2) of
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. The Single Judge
of the High Court had directed ten seats to be kept vacant
for the academic year 2008-2009 and those ten seats kept
0
vacant have not been filled up and the College has not
received any fees for the ten seats. Excluding these ten
seats, the College will have to surrender 107 seats in a
phased manner, not more than ten seats in each
academic year beginning from the academic year 20122013. These 107 seats will be. surrendered to the State
E
Government and the State Government will fill up these
107 seats on the basis of merit as determined in the
RPMT or any other common entrance test conducted by
the State Government or its agency for admissions to
Government Medical Colleges and the fees of the
F
candidates who are admitted to the 107 seats will be the
same as fixed for the Government Medical Colleges.
[Para 28] [341-D-H; 342-A-C]
Deepa Thomas and Ors. v. Medical Council of India and
G
Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 430 - relied on.
5. As the 117 students who had been admitted to the
MBBS course in the College were not to be blamed for
the lapses on the part of the College, their admission
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A should not be disturbed. But since they are beneficiaries
of violation of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations by the College, and have got admission into
the College without any proper evaluation of their merit
vis-a-vis the other students who had applied but had not
B been admitted in a competitive entrance examination,
they must pay some amount for development of
infrastructure in the medical college of the Government
as a condition for allowing them to continue their MBBS
studies by orders under Article 142 of the Constitution.
C Therefore, they will each pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs within a
period of three months from the date of this judgment to
the State Government and in the event of default, the
students will not be permitted to take the final year
examination and the admission of the defaulting students
0 shall stand cancelled and the College will have no liability
to repay the admission fee already paid. The amount so
paid to the State Government shall be spent by the State
Government for improvement of infrastructure and
laboratories of the Government medical college of the
State and for no other purpose. [Paras 27, 29 and 30] [341E C-D; 342-D-G; 3"43-F-H; 344-A-B]
Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
and Ors.(2011) 3 SCC 617: 2011 (2) SCR 1071 ; Deepa
Thomas and Ors. v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2012)
F 3 SCC 430; Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
2012 (5) SCALE 328 - relied on.
A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society v.
Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 667:
G 1986 (2) SCR 749 ;Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena
Peethambaran and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 719: 2003 (3) Suppl.
SCR 275; Visveswaraiah Technological University and Anr.
v. Krishnendu Halder and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 606: 2011 (2 )
SCR 1007 - distinguished.
H
A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. Inspector of Police, CBI
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
309
HEAL TH SCIENCE
Vishakapatnam (2011) 10 SCC 259: 2011 (12) SCR 718 -
A
referred to.
Civil Appeal No. 6210 and 6211 of 2012
1. It cannot be held that the MCI could not have
issued the order dated 04.02.2010 discharging the six 6
students from the MBBS Course on the ground that.they
had not been selected in the RPMT-2008 and that their
admissions were in breach of the provisions of clause (2)
of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations, in view of the of
the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the Single Judge C
of the High Court in three Writ Petitions which had
attained finality. The .question as to whether the
admission of the six students was in breach of clause (2)
of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations was not in issue
in the aforesaid three writ petitions. The High Court D
disposed of the three writ petitions on the basis of a
compromise between the writ petitioners on the one
hand. As the College has not produced the pleadings
before this Court in the three writ petitions to show that
an issue was raised before the High Court in the E
aforesaid three writ petitions by the MCI that the
admission of the 6 students was in breach of clause (2)
of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations, the principles laid
down in Section 11 CPC relating to res judicata will not
apply. As a matter of fact, when the order dated F
26.05.2009 was passed the MCI had no information that
the six students had not been selected in the RPMT-2008
and it was only in August, 2009, and thereafter that the
MCI came to learn about the breacll of the provisions of
Regulation 5 and accordingly MCI issued orders to G
immediately discharge six; students. [Para 9) [350-F-H;
351-A-B; 351-D-G]
2. It is also not correct to say that the College could
admit students on the basis of marks obtained by them
in the qualifying examinations under Clause (1) of H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. Regulation 5(1) of
the MCI Regulations applies only in a State where one
University or Board or Examining Body conducts the
qualifying examination, in which case, the marks obtained
at such qualifying examination may be taken into
B consideration. As the State of Rajasthan has more than
one University/Board/Examining Body conducting
qualifying examinations, clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the
MCI Regulations Yfill apply which provides that a
competitive entrance examination will have to be held so
c as to achieve a uniform evaluation. The College, therefore,
was bound to hold a competitive entrance examination
in accordance with clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations or enter into a consensual arrangement with
the State Government to admit students on the basis of
0 the Competitive Entrance Examination conducted by the
State Government. The College entered into a
consensual arrangement with the State Government to
admit students on the basis of merit as determined in the
RPMT-2008. Therefore, the clarification of the Secretary
E of the MCI that for the purpose of admissions within the
time schedule fixed by this Court, admission can also be
made on the basis of marks secured in the 10+2
Examination as provided in Regulation 5(1) of the MCI
Regulations is not in accord with the fact situation in the
State of Rajasthan. The admission of the six students by
F the College to its MBBS Course was, therefore, in breach
of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. [Para
1 OJ [351-G-H; 352-B-E-F-H; 353-A]
Mirdul Dhar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2005)
G 2 SCC 65 - referred to.
3. The Court, invoking its powers under Article 142
of the Constitution directs that the admission of the 6
students in the MBBS Course will not be disturbed
H subject to the condition that each of the 6 students pay
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
311
HEALTH SCIENCE
to the State Government Rs.3 lacs for development of A
infrastructure of Government medical colleges within a
period of three months from the date of the judgment
failing which they will not be allowed to take the final
MBBS examinations and their admission will be
cancelled. [Para 12] [353-E-F]
B
Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and
Anr. 1986Supp. SCC 740; A. Sudha v. University of Mysore
and Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 537; 1988 (1) SCR 368; Association
of Management ofUnaided Private Medical and Dental C
College v. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC
704; Monika Ranka and Ors. v. Medical Council of India and
Ors. (2010) 1 O SCC 233 - referred to.
4. Considering the fact that the College has violated
the provisions of clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI
D
Regulations, as a deterrent measure to prevent similar
breach of the MCI Regulations in future, it is directed that
the College will surrender six seats in the MBBS course
for the acaden;ic year 2012-2013 to the State Government
to be filled up on the basis of the RPMT or any other E
common entrance test conducted by the State
Government of Rajasthan or its agency for admission to
the MBBS Course and the fee that will be payable by the
students admitted to the six seats will be the same as are
payable by the students admitted on the basis of RPMT
F
or another common entrance test conducted by the State
Government or its agency. [Para 12] [353-F-H; 354-A-B]
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 2012 (5)
SCALE 328 - relied on.
G
Case Law Reference:
In Civil Appeal Nos. 8142, 8143 and 8144 of 2011:
1999(1) Suppl .. SCR 249
Referred to
Para 11
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797
Referred to
Para 11
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 833
Referred to
Para 11
2011 (123) SCR 718
Referred to
Para 12
B
2002 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 587 Followed
Paras 20
and 30
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603
Followed
Paras 20
and 30
C
2011 (2) SCR 1071
1986 (2) SCR 749
Relied on
Para 27
Distinghished Para 24
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 275
Distinguished Para 25
D
2011 (2) SCR 1007
(2012) 3 sec 430
2012 (5) SCALE 328
Distinguished Para 25
Relied on
Relied on
Paras 27
and 28
Para 29
E In Civil Appeal No. 6210 and 6211 of 2012
2005 (1) SCR 380
(2005) 2 sec 65
F
1986 Supp. sec 740
1988 (1) SCR 368
(2005) 13 sec 104
G
(2010) 10 sec 233
(2012) 5 SCALE 328.
Referred to
Para 6
Referred to
Para 6
Referred to
Para 7
Referred to
Para 7
Referred to
Para 7
Referred to
Para 7
Relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8142 of 2011.
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
313
HEALTH SCIENCE
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2009 of the
A
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in Special
Appeal No. 241 of 2009 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10858 of
2008.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 6210, 6211 of 2012, 8143, 8144 & 8999 of
2011.
Ravinder Shrivastav, Pallav Shishodia, P.S. Narsimha, K.K.
B
Venugopal, Maninder Singh, Amrendra Sharan, Jasbir Singh c
Malik, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Vini'ta
Sasidharan (For Lawyer's Knit & Co.), J.S. Bhasin, T. Mahipal,
A. Venayagam Balan, Rashmi Priya, Gaurav Sharma, Shivaji
M. Jadhav, Amit Kumar, Atul Kumar, Rekha Bakshi, Somendra
Chandra Jha, Manju Jana, Milind Kumar, Naveen Kr. Chauhan,
0
Rahul Singh Chauhan, Mandar K. Narwane, Praveen Swarup,
Rajendra Soni, Anuradha Soni, Abhinav Mukerji, P.K. Jain,
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. PATNAIK, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8142 OF 2011, CIVIL APPEAL N0.8143
OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPEAL N0.8144 'OF 2011:
E
1. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article
F
136 of the Constitution of India against the common order and
judgment dated 03.09.2009 of the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in Special Appeal Nos.241
of 2009 and 386 of 2009.
FACTS
2. The facts very briefly are that the Secretary, Medical
Education, Government of Rajasthan, held a meeting on
04.12.2007 for the purpose of conducting a common entrance
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A test for admission to the Medical and Dental Colleges in the
State of Rajasthan for the academic year 2008-2009. Besides
the Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan,
the Registrar, Ra]asthan Medical University of Health Sciences,
Jaipur, Professor Anatomy of Medical College, Jaipur, Special
B Officer, Technical Education Department, Government of
Rajasthan, representative from the Federation of Private
Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Managing
Director, Geetanjali Medical College, Udaipur, Managing
Director, National Institute of Medical Sciences, Jaipur, were
c also present in the meeting. Geetanjali Medical College and
Hospital (for short 'the College') was yet to receive its
permission from the Government of India and affiliation from the
Rajasthan University of Medical Sciences and on 12.12.2007,
the Chairman and Managing Trustee of the Geetanjali
Foundation Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal gave a written
D undertaking that the College will admit the students to the MBBS
course only after getting permission from the Government of
India and after getting affiliation from the Rajasthan University
of Medical Sciences. Another meeting for the aforesaid
purpose was held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,
E Medical Education on 15.12.2007 and at this meeting it was
decided that students will be made available for 85% of the
seats in the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan through
the Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test 2008 (for short the 'RPMT2008), and the remaining 15% seats of the colleges will
F constitute NRI quota which will be filled by the colleges. The
representative of the College did not participate in the meeting
on the ground that inspection of the College by the Medical
Council of India (for short 'MCI') was going on. The Director of
the College in his letter dated 18.12.2007 to the Secretary,
G Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan, while expressing
his inability to attend the meeting on 15.12.2007, explained that
the College cannot participate in the admission procedure and
cannot give consent for taking the students from the RPMT2008 till the College received the clearances from the MCI.
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
315
HEALTH SCIENCE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Thereafter, the inspection report in respect of the College was
A
considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI on
12.05.2008 and the MCI decided to recommend to the
Government of India to issue the permission letter for
establishment of the College with an annual intake of 150
students for the academic year 2008-2009. The Government
B
of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, however, took
a decision not to grant permission for establishment of the
College for the academic year 2008-2009 and communicated
this decision in its letter dated 04.08.2008 to the Chairman and
Managing Trustee of the Geetanjali Foundation.
c
3. Aggrieved, the College filed Writ Petition (C) No.357
of 2008 before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India and on 03.09.2008 this Court disposed of the writ
petition after recording the statement of the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the revised orders will be passed by the
D
Government of India within a week in respect of the College. In
the order dated 03.09.2008 disposing of the writ petition of the
College, this Court further observed that the College may
complete the admissions by 30.09.2008 in accordance with the
rules and procedure laid down for the purpose of admissions.
E
The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
then issued a permission letter dated 16.09.2008 for
establishment of the College with an annual intake capacity of
150 students with prospective effect from the academic year
2008-2009 under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council
F
Act, 1956. In this permission letter dated 16.09.2008, it was
inter alia stipulated that the admission process for the
academic year 2008-2009 has to be completed by the College
within the time schedule indicated in the Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997 made by the MCI.
G
4. The College by its letter dated 25.09.2008 requested
the President, Federation of Private Medical and Dental
Colleges of Rajasthan to allot students to the College by
conducting counselling and the College also issued an
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 11 S.C.R.
A advertisement on 26.09.2008 in leading newspapers inviting
applications from the candidates for admission counselling to
the first year MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009
on the basis of PC-PMT/10+2 examination with minimum 50%
marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as per regulations of
B the MCI and stated in the advertisement that the last date of
receipt of the applications would be 28.09.2008 and the
candidates will be selected on the basis of merit. After
counselling, out of the 150 seats of the College in first year
MBBS course, 16 seats were filled up by students from PCC PMT conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and
Dental Colleges of Rajasthan and 101 seats were filled up from
amongst candidates who had passed the 10+2 examination
and 23 seats of the NRI quota were filled up by the College.
5. Some of the candidates who were selected through the
D RPMT-2008 and placed in the waiting list of candidates for
admission to the MBBS seats in the medical colleges in the
State of Rajasthan filed eight writ petitions before the Rajasthan
High Court, Jaipur Bench, contending that they were entitled to
be admitted to the seats of the College in the first year MBBS
E course on the basis of their merit in the RPMT-2008 and
praying for a direction to the College to consider and give them
admission in the MBBS course in the College against the 85%
seats of the 150 seats on the basis of their merit in RPMT-2008
by holding counselling and further praying that no one should
F be admitted against the 150 seats from any source other than
the RPMT-2008. The learned Single Judge of the High Court,
who heard the writ petitions, initially passed an interim order
, on 29.09.2008 directing that ten seats in the College will be
reserved for the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge of
G the High Court thereafter passed the final order on 18.03.2009
holding that the RPMT-2008 was conducted in accordance with
Regulation 5 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 made by the MCI (for short 'the MCI
Regulations') as well as in accordance with Ordinance 272 (IV)
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF 317
HEALTH SCIENCE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
and the policy of the State Government and the College could A
not have admitted candidates to the 85% of the seats in the
MBBS course as per its own choice at the cost of meritorious
students placed in the waiting list of candidates found successful
in the RPMT-2008. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
thus allowed the writ petitions and declared that the admissions B
made by the College in MBBS course for the academic year
2008-2009 against 85% of the seats were illegal and directed
the State to hold counselling from the waiting list of students of
RPMT-2008 and further directed that the writ petitioners will be
given admission as per their merit position in the waiting list c
and the process be completed before the commencement of
the RPMT-2009. The final order dated 18.03.2009 of the
learned Single Judge was challenged by the College as well
as the students who were admitted by the College in Special
Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. All these D
Special Appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, but d.ismissed by a
common order dated 03.09.2009. Aggrieved, the students who
had been admitted into the College have filed Civil Appeal
Nos.8142 of 2011 and 8143 of 2011 and the College has filed E
Civil Appeal No.8144 of 2011.
6. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Ravinder
Shrivastav and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for
the appellants, submitted that the college had not agreed to
admit students to its MBBS seats from amongst the students F
selected in the RPMT-2008 in the meeting held on 15.12.2007
under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Medical Education,
Government of Rajasthan because the College did not have the
permission from the Government of India to establish the
College. They submitted that the first counselling for students G
selected in the RPMT -2008 for admission in the MBBS course
was held on 17.07.2008 and second and last counselling for
such students selected in the RPMT-2008 for admission in the
MBBS course was over on 24.09.2008 and the College
received the letter of permission from the Government of India H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 11 S.C.R.
A
for establishing the College for MBBS course with an annual
intake of 150 students for the academic year 2008-2009
onwards on 25.09.2008 and by this date as the second and last
counselling for the candidates selected on the basis of RPMT2008 was over, the College could not admit the students to 85%
B
of the seats in the MBBS course on the basis of the RPMT2008. They submitted that in these peculiar facts the College
issued an advertisement in leading newspapers inviting
applications from the candidates for admission in the first year
MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 on the basis
c of their merit in PC-PMT or 10+2 examination. They submitted
that the Principal of the R.N.T. Medical College and Controller
by his letter dated 29.09.2008 also constituted a team of five
officers with Professor and Head of Department of Pathology
& Academic Officer of the College as the Chairman to supervise
D
the admissions in the College. They submitted that after
counselling, 16 students were admitted from the list of
candidates selected on the basis of PC-PMT conducted by the
Federation of the Private and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan on
the basis of their merit and 101 students were admitted on the
basis of their merit in 10+2 examination in the MBBS course
E
of the College.
7. They relied upon the judgment of this Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC
481] in which it has been held that a private unaided nonF
minority institution has the right to establish and administer an
educational institution under Article 19(1 ){g) of the Constitution
of India and that such right includes the right to admit students
into the institution. They also cited the judgment of this Court in
P.A. lnamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 6
G SCC 537] in which the law laid down in TM.A. Pai Foundation
{supra) was clarified and it was held that non-minority unaided
institutions, like the minority institutions, can also legitimately
claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be
allowed admission and the State cannot impose a quota of seat
H
RAJAN PUROHIT v. RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF
319
HEALTH SCIENCE [A.K. PATNAIK, J.)
sharing in such institutions and that this can only be done by a A
consensual arrangement. They submitted that in P.A. lnamdar
(supra), this Court further held that all private institutions
imparting same or similar professional education can join
together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the triple
tests of the admission procedure being fair, transparent and B
non-exploitative. They submitted that in accordance with the
aforesaid law laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation
and P.A. lnamdar (supra), a common entrance test, namely,
PC-PMT 2008, was held by the Federation of the Private and
Dental Colleges of Rajasthan and on the basis of the merit as c
determined in PC-PMT 2008, 16 students have been admitted
to the MBBS course of the College.
8. They submitted that the finding of the High Court that
admission to the 85% of the seats in the MBBS course of the
College could, as per the MCI Regulations, be made only on D
the basis of merit as determined in the RPMT is not correct.
They submitted that Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations lays
down the "eligibility criteria" for admission to the MBBS course
and it provides that a candidate should have completed the age
of 17 years on or before the date mentioned therein and he E
should have passed the qualifying examination. They submitted
that all the 117 students (16+101) admitted to the MBBS course
in the College for the academic year 2008-2009 fulfilled the
requirements regarding age and passing of qualifying
examination as provided in Regulation 4 of the MCI
F
Regulations. They submitted that Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations states that the selection of students to medical
college shall be based solely on the merit of the candidate and
clause (1) of Regulation 5 states that for determining the merit,
the marks obtained at the qualifying examination may be taken · G
into consideration.