Education Promotion Society For India And Another v. Union Of India And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The first petitioner, a society claiming to represent numerous educational institutions—including medical colleges offering postgraduate (P.G.) courses—filed a writ petition seeking an extension of the court-approved counselling schedule for P.G. medical seats. The petition was prompted by the fact that a substantial number of seats remained vacant after completion of the scheduled counselling rounds for the 2019 academic year. The Union of India opposed the request. The matter came before the Supreme Court and was decided on 21 June 2019.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments

Medical colleges have invested heavily in infrastructure; vacant seats undermine that investment.

India faces an acute shortage of doctors; filling more seats aligns with the State’s policy to expand medical manpower, evidenced by permitting seat increases in government colleges without proportional infrastructure expansion.

The Court has previously granted extensions in similar contexts (graduate, postgraduate, and super-speciality courses), specifically citing the order dated 11 October 2017 permitting a mop-up counselling for 553 super-speciality seats.

Union of India’s Arguments

Granting an extension would contravene earlier Supreme Court judgments that established and enforced a strict counselling schedule.

The sanctity of the decisions in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India would be undermined if further extensions were allowed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65	Directed strict adherence to a uniform, court-approved schedule for medical admissions to curb irregularities.	The Court relied on this case to emphasise that any deviation from the fixed schedule would defeat the purpose of maintaining consistency and fairness in admissions.
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433	Reiterated the need for strict compliance with the admission timetable.	Cited to reinforce that previously mandated timelines cannot be diluted through ad-hoc extensions.
Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 225	Expressly approved the counselling schedule for medical admissions.	Used to show that the existing schedule already carries this Court’s approval, leaving little room for modification.
Order dated 11 October 2017 in M.A. No. 1043/2017 in I.A. No. 96448/2017, W.P.(C) No. 743/2017	Granted a one-time, ten-day extension for mop-up counselling of super-speciality seats on Central Government’s request.	Distinguished as a year- and course-specific exception that explicitly stated it should not operate as precedent.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65

Directed strict adherence to a uniform, court-approved schedule for medical admissions to curb irregularities.

The Court relied on this case to emphasise that any deviation from the fixed schedule would defeat the purpose of maintaining consistency and fairness in admissions.

Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433

Reiterated the need for strict compliance with the admission timetable.

Cited to reinforce that previously mandated timelines cannot be diluted through ad-hoc extensions.

Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 225

Expressly approved the counselling schedule for medical admissions.

Used to show that the existing schedule already carries this Court’s approval, leaving little room for modification.

Order dated 11 October 2017 in M.A. No. 1043/2017 in I.A. No. 96448/2017, W.P.(C) No. 743/2017

Granted a one-time, ten-day extension for mop-up counselling of super-speciality seats on Central Government’s request.

Distinguished as a year- and course-specific exception that explicitly stated it should not operate as precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that, except for the 11 October 2017 order concerning super-speciality seats, prior extensions cited by the petitioners were confined to state-specific or institution-specific circumstances and were expressly non-precedential. The petitioners, by contrast, sought a blanket extension for all P.G. seats without demonstrating any particular impediment faced by individual colleges.

The Court examined data supplied by the Union of India, showing that of 603 vacant seats in deemed universities, only 31 were clinical while 572 were non-clinical—categories historically prone to vacancies because graduates are less inclined toward non-clinical disciplines. Recognising that the approved schedule already provides three opportunities (two regular rounds and one mop-up round), the Court held that vacancies alone do not justify disrupting the timetable.

Emphasising the rationale from Mridul Dhar and related cases, the Court reasoned that allowing further extensions would “open a Pandora’s box,” encouraging repeated schedule violations and eroding the uniform regime designed to prevent manipulative or unfair admissions practices.

Holding and Implications

Petition Dismissed. The Supreme Court refused to grant any extension of the counselling schedule for postgraduate medical admissions.

Implications: The existing schedule, including completion of the mop-up round by 31 May 2019, remains strictly binding. Colleges must comply even if seats remain vacant, reaffirming that judicially approved timelines cannot be relaxed absent exceptional, case-specific circumstances. The decision does not set a new precedent but fortifies earlier rulings mandating rigid adherence to admission schedules.

Education Promotion Society For India And Another v. Union Of India And Others

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner no.1 Society which claims to represent a large number of educational institutions including medical colleges running postgraduate (P.G.) medical courses, has prayed that this Court may grant extension of time to respective medical colleges/deemed universities for carrying out counselling for P.G. courses since large number of seats in these colleges are lying vacant.

2. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners urges that these colleges have spent a huge amount of money on the infrastructure of the colleges. He submits that there is an acute shortage of doctors in India and, in fact, the Union of India has permitted increase of seats in government medical colleges without increase of infrastructure. According to him, this shows that the intention of the State is to ensure that more and more doctors pass out and treat the patients. He also relied upon a large number of orders wherein extension has been granted in granting admission in medical colleges in graduate course, P.G. courses and superspeciality courses. He has specifically drawn our attention to the orders passed by this Court on 11.10.2017 in Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No.1043 of 2017 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, wherein on the request of the Central Government the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) was permitted to hold mopup counselling for 553 unfilled super speciality seats lying vacant. He submits that a similar order may be passed in this case.

3. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India has opposed the said application and submits that the sanctity of the earlier orders passed by this Court in Mridul Dhar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors1 ; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.2 and Ashish Ranjan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.3, will be set at naught if the petition is allowed.

4. This Court in Mridul Dhars case (supra) noted that there was no consistency in fixing the time schedule for admissions to medical colleges and discrepancies and irregularities in maintaining a prescribed schedule were being exploited by many private medical colleges by admitting undeserved students and charging high fees. This Court referred to the schedules notified by the Medical Council of India and directed strict adherence of those schedules. This was reiterated in Priya Guptas case (supra). In Ashish Ranjans case (supra), this Court specifically gave its approval to the time schedule. The schedule as approved by this Court provides that the declaration of result has to be done by the end of January and the first round of counselling for All India quota seats, deemed and central institutes has to be completed by 24th March and state counselling should be

1 (2005) 2 SCC 65

2 (2012) 7SCC 433

3 2016 (11) SCC 225 completed by 5th April, second round of counselling by 12th and 26th April respectively and mopup round by 8th May for state and the 22nd May for Deemed Universities and Central Institutes. Last date of joining should be 31st May for deemed and central institutes and 18th May for the states. We have been informed that this date has been extended to 31st May for states also. The date was extended to 17.06.2019 for the State of Maharashtra, vide order of this Court, due to certain issues specific to the State of Maharashtra.

5. We have carefully gone through the orders relied upon by the petitioners. Except the orders in M.A. No.1043 of 2017 in

I.A.No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, all the orders are either state specific or college/university specific. They have been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each particular case and in most of the orders it is clearly mentioned that the orders shall not be treated as precedent. As far as the order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned it related to superspeciality seats and this Court on the request of the Central Government extended the date for counselling by 10 days from the date of the order and further granted 4 days for the candidates to join. The order also clearly states that it is only applicable to the said academic year.

6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual college or university but generally on the ground that a large number of seats for the P.G. courses are lying vacant. It is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant. However, it is important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in nonclinical subjects. There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard to the remaining 400500 seats. This Court however can take judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of non clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do not want to do postgraduation in nonclinical subjects. Merely because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a Pandoras box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule will be defeated.

7. We may note that in the schedule prescribed, there are three rounds of counselling, the first round, the second round and the mopup round. The mopup round was to be completed by 31.5.2019 and if some seats remain vacant even after the mopup round it cannot be helped. Extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any other justification.

8. We find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) (Surya Kant) New Delhi June 21, 2019

Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of 2019, decided on June 21, 2019

Education Promotion Society For India And Another v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments

Union of India’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Education Promotion Society For India And Another v. Union Of India And Others

Comments