ORDER
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9 have tendered the joint memo for settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9.
2. The said joint memo is duly signed by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. As stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respective respondents, the parties have duly signed the agreement in the joint settlement. An affidavit has also been filed by the Co-
4
ordinator of Association of Minority Professional Colleges in Karnataka.
3. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as for respondent Nos.5 to 9 pray that in view of the aforesaid settlement, the writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the settlement and the undertaking given by respondent Nos.5 to 9.
4. As such, since it is a settlement declared before the Court in the course of hearing by the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9, we do not see any impediment in recording of such settlement.
5. However, Mr.N.Khetty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - MCI contended that without the presence of MCI, no order could be passed by this Court and in support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Swati Sethi And Others
5
reported at (2004) 5 SCC 798 and the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Naina Verma And Others reported at (2005)
12 SCC 626 and he submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions, the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for deletion of MCI may not be granted. He further contended that unless and until the matter is examined by the Court and the finding is recorded about any illegality committed by the College or the rights of the petitioners-students as the case may be, this Court may not even record the settlement. Therefore he submitted that the attempt to get the seal of the Court by way of settlement produced in the present proceedings may not be entertained.
6. We may at the outset also record that in furtherance to the settlement tendered between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9 in Clause (4) of
6
the said settlement, the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have also declared that the interse merit while granting admission shall be considered and then only, the admission shall be granted.
7. In view of the above, we find that following order deserves to be passed:
1. The settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9 are taken on record with modification of Clause-4 as referred in earlier paragraph and it would bind to the parties to the settlement. However we clarify that the settlement shall not be binding to any of the regulatory authority who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 which includes MCI.
2. We also clarify that the present settlement shall not operate prejudicial to the interest of any of the student who are not parties to the proceedings or who may be having
7
higher merit in comparison to the petitioners herein.
3. As we have clarified that the settlement would not be binding on respondent Nos.1 to 4 including MCI, we find that the order for deletion of MCI is not required. Petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-
8