Supreme Court Upholds NEET Schedule: Invalidates Postgraduate Medical Admissions Beyond Cut-off Date (October 17, 2022)

Date of the Judgment: October 17, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 519
Judges: Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar. The judgment was authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Can medical admissions be granted after the stipulated cut-off date, even if seats remain vacant? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the admission schedule for postgraduate medical courses. This judgment clarifies that admissions made after the cut-off date, even if seats are vacant, are invalid, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the prescribed timelines.

Case Background

The case involves a batch of appeals filed by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India (now the National Medical Commission) against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court had directed the West Bengal University of Health Sciences to admit certain students to postgraduate medical courses, even though these admissions were made after the cut-off date and without regard to merit.

The respondent-students, all MBBS doctors, appeared for the NEET (PG)-2019 entrance examination seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses in West Bengal. The results were declared on January 31, 2019, and the admission schedule, as per the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, stipulated that the last date for admissions was May 31, 2019.

Despite participating in the counseling process, these students did not secure a seat due to their lower ranks. Subsequently, they filed writ petitions before the High Court, arguing that vacant seats should be filled. The High Court, through interim orders, directed provisional admissions, which were later regularized, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Calcutta, through a series of interim orders, directed the admission of the respondent-students to postgraduate medical courses, even after the cut-off date of May 31, 2019. These orders were passed despite the students not securing seats through the regular counseling process and without considering their merit ranking. The High Court later regularized these admissions, citing the students’ completion of six months of the course.

The Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India challenged these orders in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had erred in disregarding the admission schedule and the principle of merit. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s orders, and the matter was heard in detail.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (referred to as “Regulations 2000”). These regulations, as amended up to May 2018, prescribe the admission schedule for postgraduate medical courses. The schedule mandates that the last date for admissions is May 31 of each academic year.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the strict adherence to this schedule in previous judgments, including:

• Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another vs. Union of India and Others, which established the need for a consistent time schedule for medical admissions.
• Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, which reiterated the importance of adhering to the admission schedule.
• Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others, which further emphasized that no deviation from the admission schedule is permissible.

The relevant part of the schedule is as follows:

“3. In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not be extended after 31st May.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that this schedule must be strictly followed to maintain the integrity of the admission process and to ensure that academic sessions are not disrupted.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, argued that the High Court’s orders were in clear violation of the prescribed admission schedule. They emphasized that admissions beyond May 31st are not permissible under any circumstances.
• The appellant contended that the High Court erred by granting admissions based on a “first-come-first-serve” basis, disregarding the merit principle, which is the cornerstone of postgraduate medical admissions.
• They further argued that the respondent-students’ provisional admissions should be quashed, as they were made in contravention of the Regulations 2000 and the Supreme Court’s consistent stance on adhering to the admission schedule.
• The appellant also pointed out that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected requests for extending admission deadlines, even when a large number of seats remain vacant.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they were not at fault, as the delay in holding the second round of counseling was due to the High Court’s initial orders. They claimed that this delay deprived them of a fair chance to secure a seat.
• They contended that the High Court’s interim orders were passed in the interest of justice, to address the issue of vacant seats and to accommodate students who were affected by the delay in the counseling process.
• The respondents pleaded for a sympathetic view, stating that some of them had completed a significant portion of their course and that denying them the opportunity to complete their studies would result in a loss of three precious years.
• They cited the case of Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik & Others, where the Supreme Court had approved a student’s admission due to peculiar circumstances, to support their plea for leniency.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues can be summarized as:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing provisional admissions to postgraduate medical courses after the cut-off date of May 31st.
2. Whether admissions to postgraduate medical courses can be made without adhering to the principle of merit, as determined by the NEET examination.

The court also considered whether the interim orders passed by the High Court could be sustained, given the consistent judgments of the Supreme Court regarding adherence to the admission schedule.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another vs. Union of India and Others [2005] 2 SCC 65: This case established the importance of a consistent time schedule for medical admissions to prevent irregularities. The Supreme Court of India noted that there was no consistency in fixing the time schedule for admissions to medical courses and there were many irregularities in maintaining a prescribed schedule, which was being exploited by medical colleges by admitting undeserved students.
• Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others [2012] 7 SCC 433: This case reiterated the need to strictly adhere to the admission schedule fixed by the Medical Council of India. The Supreme Court of India reiterated the direction for strict adherence to the rules.
• Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others [2016] 11 SCC 225: This case further emphasized that no deviation from the admission schedule is permissible. The Supreme Court of India reiterated the direction for strict adherence to the rules.
• Education Promotion Society for India and Another vs. Union of India and Others [2019] 7 SCC 38: The Supreme Court held that merely because seats are lying vacant is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats.
• Dr. Astha Goel and Others vs. Medical Counselling Committee and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 734: The Supreme Court held that there cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the Public Health.
• Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik & Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3280: This case was distinguished by the court as it involved a student who was selected in the counseling but could not pay the fee before the last date and was allowed to continue by the court, which is not the same as the present case.

Legal Provisions:

• Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000: These regulations prescribe the admission schedule for postgraduate medical courses, including the cut-off date of May 31st.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court of Calcutta. The Court held that the admissions made after the cut-off date of May 31st and without regard to merit were illegal and unsustainable.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another vs. Union of India and Others [2005] 2 SCC 65: The Court followed this authority, underscoring the importance of a consistent time schedule for medical admissions.
• Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others [2012] 7 SCC 433: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the need to strictly adhere to the admission schedule.
• Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others [2016] 11 SCC 225: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that no deviation from the admission schedule is permissible.
• Education Promotion Society for India and Another vs. Union of India and Others [2019] 7 SCC 38: The Court followed this authority, rejecting the argument that vacant seats justify extending the admission deadline.
• Dr. Astha Goel and Others vs. Medical Counselling Committee and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 734: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that there cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of Medical Education.
• Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik & Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3280: The Court distinguished this case, stating the facts were different from the present case and it was not applicable here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the established legal principles and maintain the integrity of the medical admission process. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Strict Adherence to Schedule: The Court reiterated that the admission schedule, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India and upheld in previous judgments, must be strictly followed. The cut-off date of May 31st is sacrosanct and cannot be extended under any circumstances.
• Merit-Based Admissions: The Court emphasized that admissions to postgraduate medical courses must be based on merit, as determined by the NEET examination. The principle of merit cannot be compromised, and admissions based on a “first-come-first-serve” basis are not permissible.
• Rejection of Sympathy: The Court rejected the plea for sympathy, stating that students who were admitted in violation of the rules cannot be allowed to continue their courses. The Court held that misplaced sympathy would set a bad precedent.
• Consistency and Uniformity: The Court’s decision was guided by the need for consistency and uniformity in the admission process. Allowing deviations from the schedule would open a “Pandora’s box” and undermine the entire system.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations, with a strong emphasis on the need to uphold the established legal framework and previous judgments. The factual aspects of the case, such as the students having completed a portion of their course, were given less weight compared to the legal principles.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on a clear and logical application of the law, with a focus on upholding the established legal framework.

The Court considered the argument that the students had completed a portion of their course, but rejected it, emphasizing that such considerations cannot override the established legal principles. The Court also considered the argument that vacant seats should be filled, but rejected that as well, citing the need to maintain the integrity of the admission process.

The final decision was reached by strictly adhering to the legal framework and previous judgments of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not be extended after 31st May.”

“The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a pandora’s box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule will be defeated.”

“There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the Public Health.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, and both concurred with the final judgment.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases, as it reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the admission schedule and merit-based admissions. It clarifies that no exceptions will be made to the cut-off date, even if seats remain vacant. This decision is likely to deter future attempts to circumvent the admission schedule.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court primarily reiterated and applied existing legal principles and precedents.

Key Takeaways

• Admissions to postgraduate medical courses must be completed by May 31st of each academic year.
• Admissions made after the cut-off date are invalid, regardless of the availability of seats.
• Merit, as determined by the NEET examination, is the sole criterion for admissions.
• No exceptions will be made to the admission schedule, even in cases of delayed counseling or vacant seats.
• Medical institutions must strictly adhere to the admission schedule to avoid legal challenges.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the High Court and set aside the admissions granted to the respondent-students. The Court did not give any further specific directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that admissions to postgraduate medical courses must strictly adhere to the admission schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India, with the cut-off date being May 31st. Furthermore, admissions must be based on merit as determined by the NEET examination, and no exceptions can be made, even if seats remain vacant. This judgment does not introduce a new position of law but reinforces the existing legal framework and the Supreme Court’s consistent stance on the issue.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reaffirms the importance of adhering to the prescribed admission schedule for postgraduate medical courses. The Court’s decision to invalidate admissions made after the cut-off date of May 31st and without regard to merit underscores its commitment to maintaining the integrity and fairness of the medical admission process. This judgment serves as a reminder to all stakeholders, including medical institutions and students, to strictly follow the rules and regulations governing medical admissions.

Category

Parent Category: Medical Admissions
Child Categories:

• NEET PG
• Postgraduate Medical Courses
• Medical Council of India Regulations
• Admission Schedule
• Merit-Based Admissions
• Cut-off Date
• Supreme Court Judgments

Parent Category: Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000
Child Categories:

• Regulation on Admission Schedule

FAQ

Q: What is the cut-off date for postgraduate medical admissions?
A: The cut-off date for postgraduate medical admissions is May 31st of each academic year.

Q: Can admissions be made after the cut-off date if seats are vacant?
A: No, admissions cannot be made after the cut-off date, even if seats remain vacant.

Q: What is the basis for admissions to postgraduate medical courses?
A: Admissions are based on merit, as determined by the NEET examination.

Q: What happens if a medical institution violates the admission schedule?
A: Admissions made in violation of the schedule are invalid and can be challenged in court.

Q: Does this judgment apply to all medical institutions in India?
A: Yes, this judgment applies to all medical institutions in India that offer postgraduate medical courses.