No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WRIT PETITION NO.431 OF 2013
1. Miss Moti Keisam (19)
D/o Keisam Joykumar Singh,
Tera Keithel Khuraijam Leikai,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Miss Kangjam Chelsea(18),
D/o Kangjam Arun Meitei, Keishampat Aheibam
Leikai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
3. Miss Irungbam Diana (17) through
her next friend(Natural father)
Irungbam Gopeswar Singh,
Uripok Bachaspati Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
4. Miss Malemnganbi Yumnam (18),
D/o Yumnam Gopeshwor Singh,
Takyel Kolom Leikai, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
5. Miss Loitongbam Lisha (17) through
her next friend( Natural father),
Loitongbam Saratkumar Singh,
Khagempalli Panthak, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
6. Miss Phamdom Kalpana Chanu (19)
D/o Ph. Ibochouba Meitei, Thaoroijam
Village, Imphal West District, Manipur.
7. Md. Tulkeeft Shah (18) S/o Md. Adil
Shah, Haptta Makha Leikai, Imphal
East District, Manipur.
8. Master Laba Akham (17) through
his next friend (Natural father)
Akham Samorendra Singh,
Kwakeithel Akham Leikai,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
9. Miss Cardine Akoijam(18),
D/o Akoijam Priyokumar Singh,
Sagolband Sayang, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
10. Master Loubuktongbam Chidananda
Sharma (17) through his next friend
(Natural Father) Loubuktongbam
Lalgopal Sharma, Haobam Marak
Ngangom Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
...Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through its Secretary/
Commissioner(Health).
2. The Chief Secretary & Secretary (Cabinet),
Govt. of Manipur.
2
3. The Director of Health Services,
Govt. of Manipur.
4. The Medical Council of India,
Pocket-14, Sector-B, Dwarka
Phase-1, New Delhi-110077,
India.
5. The Union of India through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health,
New Delhi.
………..….impleaded as respondents
No. 4 & 5 vide order dated 17.7.2013
passed in MC(W.P(C))No.150 of 2013.
... Respondents.
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH
For the Petitioners :: Mr. R.K.Nokulsana, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Y.Sanajaoba, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Th.Ibohal Singh, Advocate General,
Manipur.
Mr. A.Viscount, Govt. Advocate
Mr. H.Debendra, Govt. Advocate
Dates of hearing :: 14.08.2013
& 16.08.2013.
Date of Judgment & Order :: 26/08/2013
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV
)
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. R.K.Nokulsana, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.Th.Ibohal, learned Advocate General,
Manipur for the respondents No. 1 to 3. None appears for the remaining
respondents.
[2] By this writ petition, the petitioners, 10 (ten) in number, who
are all aspirants of undergoing medical education at undergraduate level,
have approached this Court challenging the decision and order issued by
the State Government on 7.6.2013 to adopt the merit list prepared by the
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) conducted by the Central
Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by cancelling the State entrance
examination which was scheduled to be held on 9.6.2013 under the
“Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for
Nomination), Rules, 2004” for the academic year 2013.
3
[3] The facts in brief as pleaded by the petitioners may first
be referred to hereinbelow.
Pursuant to a Notification dated 19.4.2013 issued by the
Medical Directorate, Government of Manipur, under the “Manipur
MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination),
Rules, 2004” inviting applications for nomination to MBBS/BDS courses
against the reserved seats of Manipur in various Medical /Dental Colleges
for the session 2013, the petitioners applied for the same. As per the said
notification, forms were to be submitted from 13.5.2013 to 25.5.2013 and
admit cards were to be issued from 1.6.2013 to 7.6.2013. The date of the
examination was fixed on 9.6.2013.
The petitioners, having been found eligible, were issued admit
cards. According to the petitioners, while they were labouring hard in
anticipation of the scheduled examination, to their utter shock and dismay
found that the said examination scheduled to be held on 9.6.2013 was
cancelled by the impugned Notification issued on 7.6.2013 and the State
Government decided to adopt the results of the NEET for the purpose of
admission to MBBS/BDS courses, which has been challenged in this writ
petition.
The impugned Notification dated 7.6.2013 reads as follows:
“
MOST URGENT
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
MEDICAL DIRECORATE
NOTIFICATION
Imphal, the 07
th
June, 2013
No.104/1/2013-DHS: Whereas, the State Cabinet in its sitting
on 6
th
June, 2013, has decided to adopt the Merit List of
NEET 2013-UG conducted by CBSE to nominate the
candidates from Manipur State for MBBS/BDS courses after
counseling and observing the rules of reservation. No
requirement for conduct of separate test for this purpose.
Now, in pursuance of Government of Manipur,
Secretariat: Health Department letter No.18/64/2012-M(C)
dated 06/06/2013, it is hereby notified to all the concerned
candidates and Officers/Officials for Manipur MBBS/BDS
Entrance Examination, 2013 that the Entrance Examination
scheduled on 09
th
June, 2013 is cancelled.
Sd/-
(A. Bijoy Singh)
Director of Health Services, Manipur.”
4
Thus, by the aforesaid Notification, the State Government
decided to adopt the merit list of the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test
(NEET) – 2013 UG conducted by the CBSE for nomination of candidates
from the Manipur State for MBBS/BDS course by cancelling the proposed
State entrance examination.
[4] The petitioners claim that the said notification was issued in
the late hour of 7.6.2013 thus making it unknown to many candidates who
are living in the far flung areas of the State and it caused public hue and
cry.
The petitioners state that the parents/guardians of the
candidates, being aggrieved, formed an association and submitted a
representation to the authorities on 10.6.2013 to reconsider, review /cancel
the impugned notification and to conduct the entrance examination under
Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for
Nomination), Rules, 2004, which, however, was not considered by the
authorities.
In the said representation, it was submitted that there was no
prohibition from any Court including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
holding the State entrance examination for nomination to MBBS/BDS
courses and in fact the Christian Medical College, Vellore and others had
filed an application before the Supreme Court, being T.C. (C) No. 98 of
2012 assailing the Medical Council of India’s Notification dated 21.12.2010
notifying the Regulations providing for common national eligibility-cum-
entrance test (NEET) for admission to the undergraduate courses in Medical
Colleges all over the country. It as also stated that many States like
Puducherry, Tripura, Sikkim etc. had conducted their own entrance
examinations.
[5] The petitioners have also stated that no cogent reason had
been given by the State Government for adopting the merit list based on
NEET nor any such reason is mentioned in the impugned notification.
Accordingly, the petitioners have contended that the said notification is
liable to be quashed as it was issued by arbitrary exercise of executive
power and without application of mind. It was also contended that the said
decision is inhuman, unjust and injurious and detrimental to the interest of
the candidates and that the said decision was not in public interest. It was
5
also contended that no prior notice was given to the candidate before
cancelling the said entrance examination.
The petitioners by filing an additional affidavit have further
contended that the pattern of examination conducted by NEET was
different from that of the state entrance examination. In the case of NEET,
there were four subjects carrying 180 marks each totalling 720 marks. On
the other hand, in the case of the proposed state entrance examination, the
total marks was 400 with four subjects each carrying 100 marks. According
to the petitioners, the petitioners who had prepared on the state
examination pattern and syllabus would prefer the state pattern. Moreover,
one of the candidates (not amongst the petitioners), who was assigned the
examination centre in Guwahati in Assam for the NEET examination could
not proceed to Guwahati due to lack of financial resources to appear in the
said NEET. These, according to the petitioners, demonstrate the injustice
caused to them and other candidates from Manipur by the impugned
notification.
[6] The State Respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition.
In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that in terms
of Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which empowers the
Medical Council of India (MCI/Council) to make regulations with the
previous sanction of the Central government for carrying out the purposes
of the Act, the Council framed the Regulations called the “Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997” vide Notification dated 4.3.1997 which
was published in the Gazette of India dated 17.5.1997.
Regulation 5 of the said Regulations laid down the norms and
criteria for admission to the medical colleges, which also provided for a
common competitive entrance examination. The said Regulations were
amended in 2010 vide Notification dated 21.12.2010 and published on
27.12.2010 which provided for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) for admission to Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses
and for selection of an organisation to conduct the examination.
The said Regulations were further amended vide No tification
dated 15.02.2012 which provided that the Notification dated 21.12.2010
would be applicable for the academic session commencing from 2013-2014.
6
[7] The State Government further stated that a number of
petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different
High Courts challenging the said Regulations containing the decisions of
the Medical Council of India (MCI/Council) and Dental Council of India
(DCI) to conduct the common entrance test examination namely, “National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test” (NEET) for admission to both M.B.B.S and
B.D.S, as well as Post-Graduate courses. All the writ petitions filed before
the different High Courts were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the matter was taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed an interim order on 13.12.2012 in those batches of
petitions, by which it was, inter alia, directed that:
“……………
In the meantime, the Medical Council of India,
the Dental Council of India, as well as the States and
Universities and other Institutions, will be entitled to conduct
their respective examinations for the M.B.B.S, B.D.S and Post-
Graduate courses, but shall not declare the results of the
same, until further orders of this Court.”
Thus, the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India
and the other States and authorities were permitted to conduct their
respective examinations, but declaration of the results was barred.
[8] In the affidavit-in-opposition, it was further stated that in
respect of the State of Manipur, selection of candidates for nomination by
the Government of Manipur for admission in the M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses in
various colleges is regulated by “The Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance
Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination), Rules, 2004.” Rule
5 of the said Rules provides that Selection Board shall hold and conduct a
written entrance examination for selection of candidates for nomination.
The said Rules of 2004 were amended vide State No tification
dated 23.03.2013 by inserting a new proviso to Rule 5 thereof, which
provided that if National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) replaces
the State entrance examination and if there is no specific Decree/Order of
Court for conducting the State entrance examination, the Selection Board
will not hold and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination.
Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules of 2004 which provides for preparation of
selection list was also accordingly modified. The aforesaid amendments to
Rules 5 and 17 are reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation of the
issues involved in this case.
7
“………………………………………………………………..
2. Amendment of Chapter-II, Rule 5-
In Rule 5- For Selection of Candidate for nomination, the
following new proviso shall be inserted, namely-
“Provided that if National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
(NEET-UG) replaces the State Entrance Examination and if
there is no specific Degree/Order of Court for conducting the
State Entrance Examination also, the Selection Board will not
hold and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance
Examination.”
3. Amendment of Rule 17
In Rule 17- Select List, the following new proviso shall be
inserted below clause (5) of Rule 17, namely –
“Provided that if the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
(NEET-UG) is conducted and its results are to be followed in
place of State Entrance Test & its results and if State-wise
merit list of the selected candidates is prepared by MCI or
other authorised agency as NEET and State Health & Medical
Department is entrusted the responsibility of counselling the
candidates for admission into Medical & Dental Colleges
against the State quota seats, the candidates from the said
select list of NEET only will be counselled and nominated for
admission to MBBS/BDS course by following the existing
Reservation Policy. Eligible candidates of the State shall apply
in duly filled in application form (Annexure VIII to Rule 17) for
open counselling for nomination for MBBS/BDS Course in
Medical/Dental College inside/outside the State of Manipur.
Prescribed Application Form is obtainable from the Directorate
of Medical & Health Services on payment of Rs. 500/- (Rupees
Five hundred) and Rs. 300/-(Rupees three hundred) only for
General/OBC and State respondents/SC candidates
respectively. The Selection Board shall make the Select List
and Wait List from amongst the eligible candidates/applicants
who obtain and submit the duly filled prescribed from.”
Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Medic al Council
of India and Dental Council of India also to proceed with their common
entrance test, i.e. National Eligibility –cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG), 2013,
the said examination was held on 15.05.2013 and altogether 5333
candidates from the State of Manipur applied for the said test and 4950
candidates (including the petitioners No. 2 to 10) appeared in the said
NEET.
In view of the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court entitling the MCI/DCI and various colleges and states to
hold examinations, State of Manipur also took steps to hold entrance
examination and issued the Notification dated 19.04.2013 by which
applications were invited from intending candidates for selection of
candidates for nomination to MBSS/BDS Courses against the reserved
8
seats of Manipur in the various Medical/Dental Colleges for the
session, 2013 as mentioned above.
Subsequently, however, before the State could conduct the
State entrance examination scheduled on 09.06.2013 as notified earlier, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 13.05.2013 allowing the
declaration of results of examination which had been held so far by the
MCI/DCI etc., primarily to safeguard the interest of the students. The
relevant portions of the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court are reproduced herein below.
“….......………………………………………………………………
5. While the matters were being heard, we had been informed
by the Learned senior counsel appearing for the Christian Medical
College, Vellore, and the Karnataka Pvt. Medical & Dental College,
that a large number of students would be adversely affected and
would stand to lose a year, if the bar on the declaration of their
results was not lifted. Although, initially, we had declined to entertain
such prayer, on account of the delay in completion of the hearing
and the prospect of the students losing a year on account thereof,
we feel that students hoping to gain admission in the MBBS as well
as Post-Graduate courses on the strength of the results of the
examinations, which have already been held and for which they had
appeared, should not be denied such opportunity, at least for this
year. We are also alive to the fact that it is the Post-Graduate
students in the medical colleges, who take charge of the medical
treatment of patients in the hospitals. Without fresh entrants into
the Post-Graduate courses, even for a year, the hospitals are likely to
be adversely affected on account of lack of doctors to directly take
care of the patients in the hospitals.
6. Apart from the above, the students, who aspire to gain entry
into the medical colleges at the MBBS and BDS and the Post-
Graduate levels, have been caught in the legal tangle for no fault of
theirs and are the victims of policy decisions. In order to safeguard
their interests, as also the interest of the hospitals, we consider it
just and equitable to lift the bar imposed by us on 13
th
December,
2012, for this year’s entrance examinations and, to that extant, we
modify our order of 13
th
December, 2012, and allow the results of
the examinations already conducted to be declared to enable the
students to take advantage of the same for the current year.”
[9] Pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2013 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the result of common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET), 2013 conducted by the CBSE was declared on 5.6.2013. In the
affidavit-in-opposition, the State Government stated that it was found that
from the State of Manipur, a total number of 2956 candidates (550 Others,
167-SC, 863-ST, 1378-OBC-PH, 3-OBC) were found qualified in the said
common National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (NEET). The petitioners
No.2 to 10 were also found to be qualified in the said test. According to the
State respondents, with the declaration of NEET result on 5.6.2013 as
9
permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government felt that there
was no requirement to conduct a separate examination by the State Health
Department. Accordingly, considering the overall situation, the State
Cabinet took a decision on 6.6.2013 to adopt the merit list of the National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG conducted by the CBSE for
nomination of candidates from the State of Manipur for MBBS/BDS Course
in terms of the “proviso” to the amended Rule 5 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS
Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004.
Pursuant to the said State Cabinet decision, the Government of Manipur
issued a notification on 7.6.2013 notifying all the concerned candidates and
others that the result of the NEET would be used for nomination and the
entrance examination which was scheduled to be held on 9.6.13 stood
cancelled as quoted above, which is challenged in this writ petition.
[10] The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that in terms
of the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
various States had conducted entrance examinations and the Manipur
MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination )
Rules, 2004 was never annulled or repealed and as such, there was/is no
restriction or prohibition in conducting the entrance examination on
9.6.2013 which was notified by the State Government on 19.4.2013. The
petitioners further contended that the State respondents have also not
clarified on the details regarding counselling of candidates for other seats
other than 15% All India quota on the basis of the NEET results.
[11] Before this matter was taken up for final hearing, considering
the nature of the controversy involved in the writ petition, this Court by an
order dated 11.7.2013 directed the petitioners to implead the Union of
India as well as the Medical Council of India as party respondents also as
they would be necessary parties for proper adjudication of the dispute
raised. Accordingly, the said newly impleaded respondents were notified.
However, they have neither appeared nor filed any affidavit-in-opposition.
Thus, their views are not available and hence, not considered.
[12] Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that after the notification was issued on 19.4.2013 for holding
the entrance examination on 9.6.2013, the state authorities had issued
admit cards and the candidates including the present petitioners were
preparing hard for the said entrance examination. However, without
assigning any reason, the State Government suddenly cancelled the
10
proposed entrance examination which was a malafide act and was
not in public interest, causing injustice to the candidates. Learned Sr.
counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the said Cabinet
decision was taken in post haste on 6.6.2013 and cancellation was notified
only on 7.6.2013 and not widely publicised and was not known to many
candidates who were living in far flung areas of the State. Learned Sr.
counsel also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated
13.12.2012 had permitted not only the Medical Council of India but also the
State Governments to hold the entrance examinations, pursuant to which
the Manipur Government itself issued the notification on 19.4.2013 for
holding the entrance examination and as such, cancellation of the said
proposed State entrance examination without any reason is quite arbitrary,
more so, when there was no direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
cancel or not to hold any such entrance examination.
Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners also
submitted that ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the final judgment
and order dated 18.7.2013 had quashed the notification dated 21.12.2010
published by the Medical Council of India as well as the notification dated
31.5.2012 published by the Dental Council of India containing the amended
Regulations by holding that neither the Medical Council of India nor the
Dental Council of India were empowered to conduct the NEET. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the role attributed to and the powers conferred on
the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India under the
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentist Act, 1948
does not contemplate anything different and rather restrictive to laying
down standard which are uniformly applicable to all Medical Colleges and
institutions in India to ensure the excellence of medical education in India
and Medical Council of India does not have the power to conduct the
common NEET. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para
No.163 of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 as follows:-
“163. The Transferred Cases and the Writ Petitions are, therefore,
allowed and the impugned Notifications Nos. MCI-31(1)/2010-
MED/49068, and MCI.18 (1)/2010-MED/49070, both dated 21
st
December, 2010, published by the Medical Council of India along
with Notification Nos.DE-22-2010 dated 31
st
May, 2012, published by
the Dental Council of India and the amended Regulations sought to
be implemented thereunder along with Notification Nos.DE-22-2012
dated 31
st
May, 2012 published by the Dental Council of India, are
hereby quashed. This will not, however, invalidate actions so far
taken under the amended Regulations including the admissions
already given on the basis of the NEET conducted by the Medical
11
Council of India, the Dental Council of India and other private
medical institutions, and the same shall be valid for all purposes.”
According to the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in view of the fact that the conduct of the NEET was held to be
illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government is under
bounden duty to conduct their own entrance examination as was proposed
under notification dated 19.4.2013. As a corollary, according to him, the
notification dated 7.6.2013 cancelling the entrance examination scheduled
to be held on 9.6.2013 is liable to be set aside and quashed. According to
him, the nomination of candidates for the seats reserved for the State of
Manipur is to be made in terms of the provisions of the Manipur MBBS/BDS
Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004.
It was also contended that even under the amended Rule 17, State wise
merit list of selected candidates is to be prepared by the Medical Council of
India or other authorised agency, which, however, has not been prepared
by the Medical Council of India nor the Rules have defined as to who would
be the authorised agency as mentioned in the amended Rule 17.
Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring
to the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, has contended that what had been saved are only those actions
taken under the amended Regulations including the admission already
given on the basis of the NEET upto the date of the passing of the
judgment i.e. 18.7.2013 and it does not save any of the actions taken
thereafter. In other words, any action taken by the State Government after
the judgment was declared on 18.7.2013 will not be saved. He further
contends that since the State Government had not conducted any
counselling on the basis of the result of the NEET and the admission had
not yet been granted so far, after the passing of the judgment by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.7.2013, the State government at present
could neither conduct the counselling nor direct admission on the basis of
the results of the NEET. According to him, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had quashed the Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India and
Dental Council of India for holding NEET and since the results of the NEET
had not been acted upon by the State Government till the passing of the
final judgment and order, the same cannot be acted upon now and the
Government will be under legal obligation to hold the state entrance
12
examination under the provisions of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance
Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004.
[13] The crux of the argument of the learned Sr. counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that the action of the State Government in
cancelling the proposed state entrance examination without assigning any
reason is arbitrary and hence illegal and the policy decision of the State
Government to adopt the results of the NEET was arbitrarily taken. Further,
since the Regulations providing for NEET had been quashed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it would be impermissible for the State Government to act
on the results of the NEET now. In support of his contentions, the learned
Sr. counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New
Delhi & anr. Vs. K.S. Jagannathan & anr.; AIR 1987 SC 537, RBF
RIG Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports),
Mumbai; (2011) 3 SCC 573, Onkar Lal Bajaj & ors. vs. Union of
India & anr. (2003) 2 SCC 673, State of Orissa & anr. Vs. Mamata
Mohanty; (2011) 3 SCC 436, Collector of Central, Excise, Calcutta
vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.; AIR 1990 SC 1276, Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation vs. Shakuntala & ors.; (2010)
12 SCC 448, State of Haryana & ors. vs. Gurcharan Singh & ors.;
(2004) 12 SCC 540, Union of India & anr. Vs. International
Trading Co. & anr. ; (2003) 5 SCC 437.
[14] The learned Advocate General appearing for the State
Respondents however, has countered the contention of the petitioners by
stating that the decision to adopt the results of NEET and to cancel the
scheduled entrance examination was taken by the State Government after
taking into consideration all the relevant factors and since the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the final order had saved the actions taken pursuant to
the Notification issued by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of
India, the admissions can be based on the results of the NEET. It was also
further contended that the State Government took the decision to cancel
the state entrance examination scheduled on 9.6.2013 after the NEET
results were declared on 6.6.2013 after the Supreme Court had allowed
conduct of the said common national entrance test and declaration of the
results. The learned Advocate General also stated that the State
Government had earlier issued the Notification on 19.4.2013 for holding the
state entrance examination as till that time there was uncertainty about the
13
NEET on account of the challenges made in the Supreme Court and
order not to declare the results of the examinations. However, after the
Supreme Court by subsequent order dated 13.05.2013 had allowed
declaration of result to enable the students to take advantage of the same
for the current year, the State government took the policy decision to act
on the results of the NEET and accordingly cancelled the proposed State
examination. Thus, according to the learned Advocate General, therefore,
there was no arbitrariness in the action taken by the State Government.
[15] On consideration of the pleadings and rival claims of the
parties, the main issue which arises for consideration by this Court is
whether, the decision of the State Government to cancel the proposed state
entrance examination and adopt the results of the NEET for the purpose of
admission to the undergraduate medical courses, in the backdrop of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is liable to be interfered with or
not.
[16] In order to appreciate the issue better it may be apposite to
recapitulate the essential facts of the case as follows.
(i) 1997: The Medical Council of India issued the “Regulations
on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” laying down the norms
for admission to Medical courses.
(ii) 2012: The aforesaid Regulations were amended in 2012
which provided for holding of “National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test to MBBS course” to be conducted by the
Central Board of Secondary Education for the purpose of
admission to the Medical Colleges. The said amendments
were challenged by some of the States and private colleges
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and some High Courts. The
matter was heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after
transferring to itself all the cases pending before the various
High Courts.
(iii) 13.12.2012: Pending final decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court passed an interim order entitling the Medical Council of
India and Dental Council of India as well as States and
Universities and Institutions to conduct their respective
examinations but not to declare the results.
14
(iv) 23.3.2013: State Government amended the Manipur
MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for
Nomination), Rules, 2004 also enabling the State Government
to act on the results of the NEET.
(v) 19.4.2013: State Government notified for holding state
entrance examination and fixes the date of examination on
9.6.2013.
(vi) 13.5.2013: Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed declaration of
results already conducted by Medical Council of India and
other Institutions to enable the students to take advantage of
the same for the current year.
(vii) 5.6.2013: CBSE declared the results of the NEET.
(viii) 7.6.2013: State Government adopted the results of the
NEET for admission to MBBS-UG courses and also cancelled
the scheduled State entrance examination slated on 9.6.2013.
(ix) 18.7.2013: Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the
Regulations providing for common National Eligibility –cum-
Entrance Test, NEET for admission, but held that actions so
far taken under the amended Regulations including the
admissions already given on the basis of the NEET conducted
by the Medical Council of India, the Dental Council of India
and other private medical institutions shall be valid for all
purposes.
[17] In the light of the above facts, we will examine if the
decisions of the State Government to adopt the merit list based on the
results of the NEET and to cancel the State entrance examination were bad
in law as contended by the petitioners.
From the above facts what is evident is that, due to the
challenge of the Regulations of the MCI/DCI providing for common
entrance examination at the national level before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, there seemed to be some amount of uncertainty about the admission
process, as to whether the MCI/DCI Regulations providing for common
entrance examination for the entire country would prevail over the
15
decentralised and separate entrance examinations conducted by the
various states/institutions or not. Purportedly to overcome this uncertainty
due to pendency of the Court cases, the State Government amended the
State Rules to fall back upon either of the two admission processes, one
under the MCI/DCI Regulations and other under the State Rules. This is
clear from the amendments to the Rules 5 and 17 of the State Rules of
2004, providing for enabling the State Government to follow the results of
the NEET in the event it replaces the State entrance examination. The
learned Advocate General, Manipur had also submitted that since the cases
pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were taking longer time than
expected to be finally decided, the State Government in order to avoid any
last minute hitches and uncertainty, decided to hold the State level
entrance examination and accordingly, issued the Notification on 19.4.2013
notifying the holding of State level entrance examination on 9.6.2013.
In view of the above, this action of the State Government to
notify the holding of the State entrance examination seems to be
reasonable. However, before the state entrance examination could be held
on 9.6.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on
13.5.2013 permitting declaration of results of various examinations
including NEET to enable the students to take advantage of the same,
thereby allowing admission on the basis of the examinations held so far. In
other words, in view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 13.05.2013, admissions could be made either on the basis of the
NEET or the localised entrance examinations which had been already
conducted. Thus, it was permissible for the State Government to act upon
the results of the NEET in terms of the MCI/DCI Regulations rather than
holding their own entrance examination. Pursuant to the said interim order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the results of the NEET was declared on
5.6.2013 which was before the scheduled date of the state level entrance
examination on 9.6.2013. It is the case of the State Respondents that after
the said results of the NEET were declared and considering the fact that as
many as 5333 candidates from Manipur had appeared in the said NEET out
of whom 2956 were found qualified, the State government took the policy
decision to act upon the results of the NEET and cancel the proposed State
level entrance examination.
16
This Court is of the view that in the light of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the decision of the State Government to act upon
the results of the NEET and to cancel the proposed entrance examination,
has a rational and natural correlation to the unfolding facts and
circumstances as mentioned above and therefore, it cannot be said to be
arbitrary. The amendment to Rule 5 of the State Rules also enables the
State Government to rely on the results of the NEET, to which, the
petitioners have not taken any exception. As a corollary, if the Rules enable
the State Government to rely on the results of the NEET, as also permitted
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a one time measure, there was no need
to go for another process of State level entrance examination, as, such
duplication would have created more confusions and uncertainties in
nominating the candidates. Therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances,
cancelling the proposed State entrance examination was a natural and
normal course of action which could not be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.
[18] It may be also noted that had the MCI/DCI Regulations been
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government would have
been under legal obligation to rely only on the NEET results and could not
have conducted the State entrance examination. As mentioned above,
however, an element of uncertainty had ensued on account of the
challenges to these MCI/DCI Regulations made before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and also on account of interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 13.12.2012 not to declare the results of the examinations so held.
Therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and unnatural on the part
of the State Government not to proceed to hold any State entrance
examination at that time. On the other hand, the subsequent decision of
the State Government to notify on 19.4.2013 for holding of State entrance
examination on 06.6.2013 which was on account of the delay in the final
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as contended by the State
respondents, also cannot be said to be unreasonable.
It may be noted that in the meantime, the State respondents
had also amended the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection
of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 to take care of any eventuality
which may arise on account of the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court which could have gone either way, either allowing the MCI/DCI
Regulations or striking these down. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its
17
interim order dated 13.5.2013 had clarified that the MCI/DCI, States,
Institutions, Colleges could announce the results of the examinations held
so far to enable the students to take admission, it was open to the State
Government to rely on the result of the NEET, which could not be said to
be unreasonable. If the State Government had decided to adopt the
results of the NEET, there was no need to go for the State entrance
examination. In other words, these acts of the State Government first, to
notify holding of State level entrance examination and thereafter to cancel
it, and to adopt the results of the NEET, cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable as these actions were based on the emerging and unfolding
circumstances.
In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that
the decision taken by the State authorities to cancel the said State entrance
examination and to adopt the NEET result is arbitrary, cannot be accepted
as there were sufficient reasons for adopting such course of action as
discussed above.
[19] The contention of the petitioners that no reason was assigned
for the said decision of the State Government cannot be accepted in view
of the fact that there was no necessity to assign any reason in the
impugned order as there was no statutory requirement to do so. Otherwise
also, even if the reasons were not publicly announced, as already noted
above, there were sufficient and good reasons for taking the said action.
The petitioners’ further plea that the candidates were not notified of such
cancellation also cannot be accepted as the petitioners are merely
candidates and no right had accrued to them entitling them of any notice
before cancellation of the examination, which was yet to be held. The
Government authorities could cancel the proposed state entrance
examination without giving any notice to them. It may be also noted that
what is important is that there should be transparency and fairness in the
process of nomination on the basis of public examination. In the present
case, the said object was fulfilled by relying upon the results of the NEET
which was based on the public examination conducted by a reputed
agency, the CBSE, and since there is no allegation relating to the conduct
of the examination by the CBSE, the claim of the petitioners not to adopt
the NEET result, is without any basis. There is no right of any candidate for
demanding any particular method of selection process unless the statutory
provisions specifically provides for it. The petitioners could not choose the
18
State level entrance examination over the NEET. In the present case,
Rule 5 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of
Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 as amended on 23.3.2013
specifically enables the State Government to act upon the NEET and it
further provides that if there is no specific decree or order of the Court for
conducting State entrance examination, the Selection Board will not hold
and conduct the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination. Therefore, it
was open to the State Government either to adopt the results of the NEET
or to hold the state level entrance examination. Adopting either of the
courses can not be said to be arbitrary.
Further, even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court h ad quashed
the MCI/DCI Regulations providing for NEET, the final judgment and order
dated 18.7.2013 also clarified that such quashing will not invalidate actions
“so far taken under the amended regulations” and “the same shall be valid
for all purposes”. The impugned notification dated 7.6.2013 was an action
taken under the amended Regulations and as such, that notification shall
be valid for all purposes as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[20] Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
contended that the final judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 18.7.2013 merely saves only those actions taken under the amended
Regulations upto the date of judgment and not those actions taken after
the passing of the judgment on 18.7.2013. Accordingly, the learned senior
counsel has contended that the processes for counselling, nomination and
admission in respect of the State of Manipur which are yet to be
undertaken will be beyond the saving clause of the final judgment.
According to him, after the final judgment and order was passed on
18.7.2013, there could not be any counselling/nomination or admission.
Therefore, the only alternative is to hold the State level entrance
examination. This contention, however, has been noted only to be rejected
for the reason that these acts of nomination, counselling and admissions
are the continuation of and are inseparable and integral part of the earlier
action of the State Government to adopt the merit list of NEET, 2013
conducted by the CBSE for nominating the candidates from the Manipur
State for MBBS/BDS course after the counselling. These processes are
nothing but natural consequences and necessary corollary of the “action
taken” by the State Government to act upon the result of the NEET, as
declared and notified on 7.6.2013 which were before the pronouncement of
19
the final judgment and order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in
our view, these subsequent and consequential actions are covered by the
expression “actions so far taken” and would come within the purview of the
saving clause of the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013.
Nomination and admission are not independent actions or
unconnected with the decision of the State Government to adopt the merit
list of the NEET as notified in the notification dated 7.6.2013 but are
consequential actions in continuation of the “earlier action” to adopt the
results of the NEET and cannot be said to beyond the scope of “actions so
far taken”, mentioned in the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. In
other words, nomination, counselling and admission are process which are
intrinsically related and integral part and continuation of the “actions so far
taken” within the scope of the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Even if the counselling and admission are to take place after
18.7.2013, these are natural consequential acts and continuation of the
“action” taken by the State Government before the final judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is to adopt the merit list of NEET for
nomination of candidates for MBBS/BDS courses after counselling and to
cancel the State level entrance examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also has clarified that these actions shall be valid for all purposes and as
such, it will be deemed that the action to adopt the results of the NEET for
nomination for all purposes which includes the subsequent and
consequential process of nominations, counselling and admission for the
academic session, 2013 which will be valid.
[21] The other contentions of the petitioners that some of the
candidates could not appear in the NEET on account of financial hardship or
that the petitioners had prepared for another pattern of examination cannot
be ground for setting aside the decision of the State Government to adopt
the merit list of NEET, 2013 UG conducted by the CBSE. It is also not the
case of the petitioners that majority of the candidates in Manipur could not
appear in the NEET thus depriving a large number of students to compete.
In fact, the petitioners No. 2 to 10 had themselves had appeared in the said
NEET and they had mentioned the case of only one person who could not
proceed to Gauhati to take part in the NEET. As such, there are no valid
ground for raising any grievance against the adoption of NEET which had
been validated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for this academic sessions as
per the final judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. In view of the above,
20
the various judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel are
not applicable in the present case.
[22] In the facts and circumstances, for the reasons discussed
above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the
same is accordingly, dismissed, however, without any costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Pao/Opendro(rt)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....