- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
DR. Pournamy Mohan, ... v. State of Kerala Repr...
Kerala High Court
Jan 15, 2012
Smart Summary (Beta)
Structured Summary of the Opinion: Seat Sharing between Self-Financing Medical Colleges and the State — PG Medical Courses, 2011
Factual and Procedural Background
These connected writ petitions concern the allocation and sharing of 50% of Post Graduate (PG) medical seats between the managements of various self-financing medical colleges and the State Government for the academic year 2011. The lead petition considered was W.P.(C) No.16421 of 2011 filed by the Kerala Christian Professional College Managements' Federation and another.
Key documentary facts stated in the opinion:
- Ext.R1(c) — a Government No Objection Certificate (NOC) to start PG courses — expressly conditioned the grant on the institution sharing 50% of seats to the Government Merit Quota.
- Ext.R1(i) — the prospectus issued by the petitioners — acknowledged that, as per Medical Council of India (MCI) norms, 50% of seats in non-governmental institutions shall be filled by the competent authority notified by the State; it also provided that vacancies on/after 25 May 2011 could be filled by the Federation.
- The Admission Supervisory Committee approved the prospectus (Ext.P3) subject to the condition that 50% of seats be filled by the Government.
- The petitioners sent several letters to the Government requesting allotment of candidates for the 50% quota, but the Government did not allot in time; the petitioners filled those seats themselves to avoid lapse.
- The Government later issued Exts.P14 and P16 orders directing cancellation of the admissions made by the colleges in the Government's 50% quota; this cancellation is challenged in these writ petitions.
- The Supreme Court granted an extension of the time schedule for PG counselling/admissions (application by State Ext.R3(c); order Ext.R3(d)) to 1 July 2011, and the State contends it made allotments on that date.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Clause 9 (Regulation 9) of the MCI Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 empowers the State Government to allocate 50% of PG seats in non-governmental (self-financing) medical colleges to the State (i.e., whether the State may take/control 50% of such seats).
- Whether the petitioners, having obtained a Government NOC and having issued a prospectus conceding a 50% State quota, can resist cancellation of admissions they made in the State quota on the ground that Regulation 9 is inapplicable or obsolete.
- Whether the methodology adopted by the State (Ext.R1(b)) for sharing seats between self-financing colleges and Government is arbitrary or inequitable.
- Whether the petitioners' claims are barred by estoppel or procedural defects (including non-joinder of necessary parties and the appropriateness of associations/federations bringing such writ petitions).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners argued that Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations had become obsolete and was not binding on them.
- They relied on Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh to support the underlying basis of the MCI Regulations and suggested later developments (T.M.A. Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar) limited the State's power to seize seats.
- P.A. Inamdar was cited to argue that compulsory sharing/usurpation of seats by the Government infringes constitutionally guaranteed rights, with heavy emphasis placed on Paras 125 and 126 of that decision.
- The petitioners also relied on certain High Court orders (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh) that had reached conclusions they regarded as supportive; however, the Advocate General noted special leave was granted against those High Court orders.
- Some petitioners contended that the Government had arbitrarily allocated its 50% quota across disciplines without rational justification (challenge to the sharing methodology).
State / Advocate General's Arguments
- The State pointed to the Supreme Court's extension of the admissions timetable (Ext.R3(d)), under which the State was entitled to allot 50% of the seats in the State quota by 1 July 2011.
- The State argued that self-financing colleges were obliged to admit students allotted by the State within the extended period and that failure to do so justified the Government's cancellation orders (Exts.P14 and P16).
- The Advocate General asserted that seat-sharing between managements and the State is permissible and pointed to para 68 of the T.M.A. Pai Foundation decision as authorizing regulatory measures for such allocation.
- The State defended the methodology in Ext.R1(b) for sharing seats as a set, non-arbitrary pattern whose alteration would have cascading effects across colleges and years.
- The State also raised procedural objections — notably non-joinder of necessary parties given the interlinked effect of seat allocation across institutions and the inappropriateness of impleading only selected candidates rather than all affected entities.
Medical Council of India (MCI) and Other Counsel Submissions
- MCI's counsel highlighted that the Supreme Court had declined to stay Regulation 9 (Ext.R3(b)), indicating the Regulations remained in force.
- MCI counsel and other senior counsel pointed out that T.M.A. Pai did not directly challenge MCI Regulations and cited Islamic Academy indicating that regulatory conditions can validly be imposed for grant/continuation of recognition.
- Counsel for some students observed that MCI Regulations had been revised (rearranged) with Government assent in 2009 and submitted that admissions are governed by MCI Regulations which cannot be flouted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others [2002 (7) SCC 258] | Emphasizes the necessity of a time schedule for courses and fixing the period during which admissions can take place. | The Court cited this case to underscore the importance of admission timelines and to justify sensitivity to timely completion of admissions; the opinion decries late approval of prospectus in light of this principle. |
| Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [2005 (2) SCC 65] | Fixes the last day for admission to Post Graduate Courses as 31st May (timing principle for PG admissions). | The Court used this authority to show why the State applied for extension of time (Ext.R3(c)) and to explain the relevance of the Supreme Court's extension to 1 July 2011 (Ext.R3(d)). |
| Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993 (4) SCC 111] | Foundational dictum historically underlying certain MCI regulatory approaches (petitioners relied on it). | The petitioners relied on Unnikrishnan to challenge the validity/continuing relevance of Regulation 9; the Court recorded this reliance but did not accept it as dispositive in the face of later binding authorities and the petitioners' own conduct. |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481] | Developed principles on educational institutions' rights and regulation; partly overruled aspects of Unnikrishnan. | The petitioners invoked Pai to argue against State usurpation of seats; the Court observed Pai's para 68 permits regulatory seat-sharing measures and noted Pai did not render MCI Regulations inapplicable on the facts here. |
| P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (6) SCC 537] | Constraints on the power to impose certain restrictions on private institutions; discussed minority rights and regulatory reach. | The petitioners relied on Paras 125–126; the Court recorded the reliance but emphasized that Inamdar does not render regulatory measures (like MCI Regulations) inapplicable and that certain paras support regulatory control (paras 91, 94, 103 were noted by the Advocate General). |
| Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999 (7) SCC 120] | Explains the binding nature of MCI Regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. | The Court relied on this authority to confirm that MCI Regulations are binding and govern admissions until restructured; it supported the conclusion that MCI Regulations continued to have force. |
| Shamin Sainudheen v. Medical Council Of India (Civil appeal No.1015/2002; judgment dated 25.1.2012 cited) | Recent reiteration by Supreme Court that admissions to medical colleges are governed by MCI Regulations and such regulations cannot be flouted. | The Court described this decision as apposite and supportive of the view that MCI Regulations govern admissions and remain operative pending any restructuring envisaged by higher authority. |
| Islamic Academy of Education & another v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697] | Clarifies that T.M.A. Pai did not make MCI Regulations wholly inapplicable and that conditions can be stipulated by regulations for grant/continuation of recognition. | The Court relied on this authority to show that regulatory conditions for recognition (including admissions) remain permissible and are relevant to the determination that MCI Regulations retain primacy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeds through a sequence of interrelated factual and legal findings, each grounded in the documents and authorities before it:
- The Government NOC (Ext.R1(c)) and the petitioners' own prospectus (Ext.R1(i)) explicitly acknowledged that 50% of seats in non-governmental institutions would be filled by the competent State authority; the Admission Supervisory Committee's approval of the prospectus (Ext.P3) was similarly conditional on the 50% State quota. These documentary admissions weigh heavily against the petitioners.
- The petitioners repeatedly corresponded with the State requesting allotment for the 50% quota and expressly stated they had no objection, and that they were "not against Government allotting 50% of the seats." The Court treats these communications as estopping the petitioners from later denying the State's entitlement to 50% of seats.
- When the State did not allot in time, the petitioners themselves admitted candidates to the State's 50% quota to avoid lapsing seats; the Government later issued orders (Exts.P14 and P16) cancelling those admissions. The Court accepts the State's position that the Supreme Court's extension of time to 1 July 2011 (Ext.R3(d)) entitled the State to allot seats up to that date and that self-financing colleges were obliged to admit State-allotted candidates within the extended time.
- The Court considered the petitioners' submissions that Regulation 9 had become obsolete (relying on Unnikrishnan, Pai, Inamdar), but observed that (a) the writ petition did not seek a declaration that Clause 9 was ultra vires or arbitrary (a necessary relief to annul a regulation), and (b) the petitioners' own conduct and admissions in prospectus and letters contradicted any present claim that they were not bound by sharing obligations.
- The binding nature of the MCI Regulations was affirmed by the Court, relying on Dr. Preeti Srivastava and the more recent Shamin Sainudheen decision. The Court noted that Pai did not operate to eliminate the force of MCI Regulations and that extant Supreme Court orders had declined to stay Regulation 9 (Ext.R3(b)).
- The Court examined the State's prescribed methodology for seat-sharing (Ext.R1(b)) — an alphabetical/alternating allocation mechanism — and found no demonstration that the method was arbitrary or inequitable; it also emphasized the practical ramifications across multiple colleges and years, reinforcing the need for a consistent system.
- Procedural shortcomings of the petitions were highlighted: because the allocation methodology affects multiple institutions and admissions across colleges, the petitions were defective for non-joinder of necessary parties (the Court held associations/federations without individual managements are a problematic vehicle for such challenges).
- The Court expressed concern about uneven application of MCI Regulations across the State and urged immediate governmental attention to ensure uniform enforcement in future years.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
Direct implications and consequences as articulated by the Court:
- The Government was justified in issuing Exts.P14 and P16 canceling admissions made by the managements in the 50% State quota; candidates admitted by the managements in that quota deserved to be expelled in consequence of the State allotment made within the extended timetable.
- The petitioners are estopped from asserting they need not share 50% of PG seats with the State given their prior NOC, prospectus provisions, and correspondence conceding the 50% allocation.
- The Court found the State's seat-sharing methodology non-arbitrary and held that the petitions challenging the methodology were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
- No costs were awarded ("No costs").
Broader implications: The opinion reiterates the primacy and binding character of MCI Regulations in governing medical admissions and urges uniform application of those Regulations across all medical colleges in the State. The Court did not announce a new precedent overturning Regulation 9; rather it applied existing authorities to uphold the regulatory framework and the State's actions in this factual context.
1. The issue boils down to the sharing of seats between the management of various self financing medical colleges and the Government for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, 2011. All these writ petitions are connected and I shall refer to the exhibits and parties in W.P.(C) No.16421 of 2011 filed by Kerala Christian Professional College Managements' Federation and another for the sake of convenience.
2. Ext.R1(c) is the No Objection Certificate issued by the government to start Post Graduate Courses as a pre- requisite for the grant of Essentiality Certificate and it inter alia reads as follows:-
"It is stated that Government have No Objection in starting Post Graduate courses by the Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Thrissur, subject to the conditions that the institution shall fulfill all the requirements as fixed by the Medical Council of India and to share 50% of the seats to Government Merit Quota ...... (emphasis supplied) Ext.R1(i) is the prospectus later issued by the Kerala Christian Professional College Managements' Federation for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses - 2011. Clause 1.4 therein is as follows:-
1.4 This prospectus contains the rules and regulations applicable for selection and admission for academic year 2011 to MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses in the Member colleges listed above Note:- As per the MCI norms, 50% of the total seats in Non-Governmental Institutions shall be filled by the competent authority notified by the State Government. However, if there are vacancies on/after 25th May, 2011 the same shall be filled up by KCPCMF. (emphasis supplied) Such a provision is in consonance with the second proviso to Regulation 9(2)(d) of Ext.R3(a) Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI Regulations' for short). The same is as follows:-
Provided further that in Non-Governmental Institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall be filled by the competent authority notified by the State Government and the remaining fifty percent by the Management(s) of the Institution on the basis of inter se academic merit. Ext.R1(i) prospectus was approved by Ext.P3 order in WP(C) No. 18290/2011 by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges subject to the fulfillment of many conditions including the following:
"1. That 50 percentage of the total seats shall be filled up by the Government as provided in the clause 9(2)(d) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000." It is disgusting to note that the prospectus is so approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee as late as on 20.06.2011 unmindful of the future of the students who have to be admitted to the course normally before 30.05.2011.
3. The petitioners contend that they had addressed several letters to the Government for allotment of candidates for the 50% quota as per the prospectus and MCI Regulations. The following are the details:-
| Sl.No. | Sender | Addressee | Date | Exhibit |
| 1 | Jubilee Missions Department of Medical College and Research Institute | Department of Health and Family Welfare | 09/05/11 | P6 |
| 2 | JubileeMissions Medical Collegeand Research Institute | Department of Health and Family Welfare | 12/05/11 | P8 |
| 3 | JubileeMissions Medical Collegeand Research Institute | Department of Health and Family Welfare | 13/05/11 | P9 |
| 4 | JubileeMissions Medical Collegeand Research Institute | DepartmentHealth and�Family Welfare | 19/05/2011 | P10 |
| 5 | MalankaraOrthodox Syrian Church Medical College | Health and Family Welfare Department | 10/05/11 | R1(e) |
| 6 | KeralaChristian Professional CollegeMangements Federation | Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges | 09/05/11 | R1(g) |
4. The Advocate General on behalf of the State points out that the deadline fixed for admission to the Post Graduate Courses has been extended by the Supreme Court. Ext.R1(a) is the order of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.197 of 2011 extending the time schedule of Post Graduate Counselling, 2011 for All India quota. Ext.R3(c) is the application put in by the State of Kerala seeking extension of time schedule for filling up the State quota available in the self financing medical colleges. The application specifically refers to the problems encountered by the State Government in implementation of time schedules in Medical and Dental admissions. The names of 10 self financing medical colleges figure in the application wherein the prayer was to complete the admission process by 30.6.2011. The Supreme Court granted extension of time till 1.7.2011 by Ext.R3(d) order and it is submitted that the State Government allotted the candidates on the same date itself. The Advocate General other connected cases asserts that the self financing medical colleges are obliged to admit students allotted by the State in the 50% quota within the time extended by the Supreme Court. The failure to do so by the self financing colleges resulted in Exts.P14 and P16 orders directing cancellation of admission passed by the State.
5. The necessity for providing a time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place has been highlighted in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others [2002 (7) SCC 258]. The same has been reiterated in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [2005 (2) SCC 65] which fixes the last day for admission to Post Graduate Courses as 31st May. This prompted the State to move Ext.R3(c) application leading to Ext.R3(d) order of the Supreme Court. Ext.R3(d) order inter alia reads as follows:-
Though on behalf of certain private medical colleges as well as the students certain grievances were put forth, we are not going into the merits of their claim in this application. Considering the earlier orders of this Court and the Regulations of MCI and the details furnished in support of the above application, we extend the time by 1st July,2011.
It is brought to our notice that some writ petitions were filed before the High Court and are pending as on date. In view of the same, the present order of us extending the time is without prejudice to the stand of the respective parties in those writ petitions.
It is also clarified that in respect of the above selection, the Medical Council of India is free to make appropriate action in accordance with their regulations applicable. (emphasis supplied) The petitioners contend that Ext.R3(d) order is only a revival of Ext.R1(a) order in the same writ petition by the Supreme Court and can therefore relate to All India quota only. But a reading of Ext.R3(c) application reveals that it very much relates to the State quota available in the self financing medical colleges. Ext.R3(d) order specifically refers to 66 Post Graduate Degree seats and 8 Post Graduate Diploma seats which allays the apprehension that it relates only to seats surrendered, fallen vacant or fresh. The petitioners have no case that it is not bound by the extension of time granted till 1.7.2011 by the Supreme Court evidenced by Ext.R3(d) order. It necessarily follows that the Government is entitled to allot seats in the 50% State quota on or before 1.7.2011. The consequence that flows other connected cases therefrom is that candidates admitted by the management on its own in the State quota deserve to be expelled. The Government was justified in issuing Exts.P14 and P16 orders directing the self financing medical colleges to cancel the admissions made in the 50% State quota.
6. Mr.Kurian George Kannanthanam, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners vehemently argues that Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations has become obsolete and is not binding. He contends that MCI Regulations is based on the dictum laid down in Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993 (4) SCC 111]. He further adds that the said decision has been partly over ruled in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481]. He also refers to the decision in P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (6) SCC 537] to contend that usurpation of seats by the Government is an infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance is placed on Paras 125 and 126 of the aforequoted decision to contend that the petitioners cannot be other connected cases compelled to give up a share of the available seats to the candidates chosen by the State. The orders of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.(C) Nos.41058 - 41101 of 2003 and that of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.16547/2010 and connected cases are relied on in support. The Advocate General alertly points out that special leave has been granted in the appeals therefrom by the Supreme Court. It is contended on behalf of the State that seat sharing between the management and the State is permitted even as per para 68 of T.M.A.Pai Foundations's case.
7. I must immediately note that the relevant prayer in the writ petition is only 'to declare that Clause 9 of the P.G.Medical Education Regulations, 2000 does not empower the State Government to take over 50% of P.G.seats from petitioner's colleges'. There is no prayer in the writ petition to declare that Clause 9 of the MCI Regulations is ultra vires or arbitrary which is the minimal necessary for a Writ Court to annul it. It remains to be seen as to whether the petitioners could wriggle out of the obligation to share seats with the State in view of its declared stand. The relevant clause in Ext.R3(i) Prospectus quoted above concedes that 50% of the seats shall be filled by the competent authority notified by the State Government. The petitioners have stated in Ext.P6 letter as follows:-
"This is to inform you that we are not against Government allotting 50% of the seats."
The petitioners have stated in Ext.P9 letter as follows:-
"Since as per the MCI Regulations, the last date for PG Medical Admissions is 31st May. Kindly make arrangements to allot the students so as to complete the admission on/before 25th May, 2011."
The petitioners have given the break up of seats between the Management and the State in the various disciplines of Post Graduate Course in Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 letters. The petitioners have again stated in Ext.R1(e) letter as follows:-
"We humbly request the Government to intimate us by return whether the Government is willing to allot the agreed 50% Post Graduate students to this College in accordance with the above fee structure. The matter may be treated as most urgent since PG Admissions have to be completed positively by 31st May, 2011. "
Yet another letter is Ext.R1(g) wherein the petitioners have stated as follows:-
"The colleges have no objection in principle to give 50% of the seats to be allotted by the Government. They are intimating the same to the Government." It does lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that they are not liable to part with 50% seats to the State in view of the stand taken by them in the Prospectus and other correspondence. The petitioners are estopped from raising such a plea late in the day when all through they were eager and willing to accept the intake of students allotted by the Government in the State quota. The contention raised on the basis of the orders of the High Courts of Karnataka & Andhra Pradesh does not merit consideration in view of the fact situation available in this case.
8. The binding nature of the MCI Regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has been clearly explained in Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999 (7) SCC 120]. Reference in this connection to the judgment dated 25.1.2012 of the Supreme Court rendered by a Bench headed by Justice Shamin Sainudheen v. Medical Council Of India No.1015/2002) is apposite. The civil appeal arose out of the decision in Shamin Sainudheen v. Medical Council of India (2010 (4) KLT 103). Thus the Supreme Court has even recently reiterated that admission to medical colleges are governed by MCI Regulations which cannot be flouted. The MCI Regulations as it stand holds the field till it is restructured in the wake of the dictum in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case and P.A.Inamdar's case.
9. Mr. Alexander Thomas, Advocate on behalf of the Medical Council of India drew my attention to Ext.R3(b) order of the Supreme Court declining stay of Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations. He points out that MCI Regulations were not the subject matter of challenge in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case as has been noticed in Islamic Academy of Education & another Vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2003) 6 SCC 697]. The latter decision in fact emphasizes that conditions can be other connected cases stipulated through the regulations for grant as well as for continuation of recognition. He also contends that minority educational institutions do not become immune to regulatory measures merely because Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is enacted. He places heavy reliance on the decision in P.A. Inamdar's case to buttress this contention particularly Paras 91, 94 and 103 thereof. Mr.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, Senior Advocate on behalf of the students contended that MCI Regulations have been rearranged with the assent of the government even in the year 2009. A detailed consideration of these aspects is unnecessary in this case especially since the Supreme Court is seizin of the matter as evident by Ext.R3(b) order.
10. Mr.K.Jayakumar, Senior Advocate, on behalf of some of the petitioners contends that the Government has arbitrarily sliced off its 50% quota from the various disciplines without any rationale or justification. The Advocate General defends the action of the State and invites my attention to Ext.R1(b) order of the Government which inter alia states as follows:-
"Methodology for sharing of seats between self financing colleges and Government will be as follows:-
All subjects shall be ranked alphabetically and the seats allotted in each discipline for that college shall be listed against that subject. The first seat available on the first subject shall be allotted to the college and the next seat to the Government. If there are odd number of seats in one subject, allotment of the first seat in the next subject will go the agency (college or Government), who has not been allotted the last seat in the previous subject. To illustrate, if Anesthesia and Bio Chemistry are the consecutive subjects in the list and if there are three seats in both the subjects, the first seat in Anesthesia will be allotted to the college, second to Government and third to the college. The first seat in Bio Chemistry will be allotted to Government, second to the college and the third to the Government.
After allotment in all the subjects have been done, the total number of seats for Degree and Diploma Courses (to be calculated separately). The first seat in next years allotment will go to the agency that did not get the last seat in the last year."
Thus a set pattern has been adopted as the methodology for sharing of seats between self financing colleges and Government which has not been shown to be in any way arbitrary or inequitable. The allotment of seats in one college will have a other connected cases bearing in the allotment in another college and tinkering with it will have a cascading effect. It was therefore incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have impleaded all the affected parties or impleaded one in a representative capacity and taken out paper publication. It would not suffice by impleading only the candidate who has secured admission in the 50% quota in a particular college in view of the chain reaction likely to be triggered. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitions challenging the methodology of sharing of seats between self financing colleges and the Government are bad for non joinder of necessary parties as well.
11. Even Ext.R3(d) order of the Supreme Court which governs the parties as regards the admission for Post Graduate Courses, 2011 indicates the primacy of the MCI Regulations. The self financing colleges are bound to share the seats with the Government in ratio of 50:50 in view of the offer held out in Ext.R1(i) prospectus and the stand taken in the various correspondence referred to supra. Ext.R1(c) No Objection Certificate to start the course was issued by the Government only subject to the condition of sharing of seats and the petitioners cannot turn around now to contend otherwise. Moreover Ext.R1
(c) Prospectus was approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges subject to the sharing of seats only. The plea of the petitioners falls from grace after having accepted the No Objection Certificate and the approval of the Prospectus without any demur. It is wished that the Government makes allotment in time at least in the years to come to avert a situation of 'chaos is come again' as written by Shakeshere in Othello and quoted in Madhu Singh's case.
12. The practice of filing writ petitions by 'Associations' and 'Federations' of Managements of Colleges without the individual managements figuring as petitioners has also to be deprecated. Such practice is prevalent only in industrial parlance wherein the cause of numerous employees is espoused by Trade Unions and Associations to strengthen their bargaining power. The law makers of the Constitution has advisedly made a clear distinction between a fundamental right available to 'any person' and those guaranteed to 'all citizens'. Part III of the Constitution of India deals with the same and all citizens are persons even though all persons are not citizens. A registered Federation might be a person entitled to file a writ petition and is not a citizen who alone can complain of violation of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
13. What disturbs me is the fact that MCI Regulations have not yet been made applicable to all the medical colleges in the State as highlighted by the petitioners. The State government should immediately address itself to this cardinal issue so that an uniformity is brought out in the enforcement of MCI Regulations. Mr. Jaiju Babu, Advocate and Mr. N.M. Madhu, Advocate made a fervent plea that the candidates expelled may be accommodated in the next academic year in the Management quota. Such a course would prejudicially affect the meritorious candidates staking their claim in next year and would certainly add to the confusion. The writ petition filed by the candidates allotted in the 50% state quota has become infructuous as their grievance stands redressed. The action of the State is well founded and does not call for any interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
x
Alert
Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.