Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) A tricky question emerges for decision on these two intra-court writ appeals, which are directed against separate but identical judgments of a learned Judge of this Court refusing to grant relief to the appellants leading to dismissal of their writ petitions. We have to decide whether to uphold the legalistic views of the learned Judge or, bearing in mind the character of the rules/regulations under consideration, the decisions of the Supreme Court cited at the bar as well as the Constitutional obligations of the State to secure equal opportunities to all, to the extent possible, we ought to interfere and thereby temper justice with some degree of empathy.
(2.) The facts and circumstances that have unfolded before us ought to be noted as a prologue to our decision. A. The two appellants, Ananya and Nikita, are residents of Port Blair, the capital of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (hereafter the said UT). After succeeding in the Higher Secondary (10+2) examinations with fairly high marks, the appellants dreamt of becoming doctors. There is no medical college in the said UT; hence, they participated in the All India Pre-Medical Test, 2014 (hereafter the AIPMT-2014) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the CBSE). From the materials on record, we can assess that at least candidates in excess of two lakh seventythree thousand had taken the AIPMT-2014. While Nikita, having obtained 349 marks, was ranked 40,928, the rank of Ananya, who closely followed her with 347 marks, was 41648. Both were included in the category of III-B. We shall advert to this category a little later. B. The procedure for admission in MBBS/BDS courses conducted by various State run medical colleges and private medical colleges are regulated by the Medical Council of India (hereafter the MCI) by framing regulations from time to time. The regulations, relevant to the present controversy, are titled "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997" (hereafter the 1997 Regulations). Since we are concerned with the MBBS course, two of the basic requirements for admission in such course required to be noted are that (i) an aspiring candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination (10+2); and (ii) must have also secured a minimum of 50% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the competitive entrance examination. The rank obtained by the candidate in the competitive entrance examination would be determinative of his/her merit and depending upon the number of seats that are available in the medical colleges, admission would be made strictly in order of merit. C. Despite the above stipulations in the 1997 Regulations, a letter dated February 27, 2014 was issued by the Director (ME), Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, addressed to, inter alia, the Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department of the said UT. As would appear from a reading of such letter and the facts and circumstances following it, this letter dated February 27, 2014 appears to be the root of the litigative exercise before this Court. We consider it absolutely necessary to quote the said letter hereinbelow: "Subject: Allocation of Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2014-15 reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to say that this Ministry has received the communications from beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments seeking clarification on the mode of selection of candidates for nomination against Central Pool UG and PG dental seats. 2. The matter has been considered in this Ministry in light of judgement/directions passed by Apex Court in various cases, it has been decided with the approval of competent authority that for this academic year i.e. 2014-15, the selection of students will be made by the beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments on the basis of marks obtained by the students in the Entrance Tests conducted by the beneficiary State/UT/Govt. Department. If the beneficiary State/UT/Govt. Department is not conducting any examination, the selection will be made on the basis of marks obtained by the students in All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test (AIPMT) conducted by CBSE. In any circumstances, the selection of students will not be made merely on academic merit of 10+2 marks." D. The contents of the aforesaid letter finds reiteration in a subsequent letter dated September 2, 2014, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare). It was also addressed, inter alia, to the Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare Department of the said UT. For facility of decision, the relevant portions of the said letter are quoted below: "Subject: Central Pool MBBS & BDS seats allocation for the year 2014- 15-reg. Sir, I am directed to forward herewith a statement indicating the number of MBBS/BDS seats alongwith the colleges concerned allocated to your State/Union Territory for the academic session 2014-15 from the Central Pool. 2. The following points may kindly be kept in view in this regard:- (i) It is once again reiterated that only the children of (i) permanent residents of the State/UT concerned; (ii) the employees of the State/UT Government concerned; (iii) the employees of the Central/other State/UT Government on deputation to the State/UT concerned and (iv) the employees of the Central/other State/UT Govt. posted in and having their headquarters within the State/UT concerned will be eligible. (ii) The children of Central/State/UT Government employees aforementioned should be treated at par with the local resident. (iii) 221/2% of the seats allotted to each State/UT concerned will be reserved for students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes of that State/UT. The break-up of this reservation will be as follows:- (a) ******* (b) ******* (c) ******* (iv) ********* (v) The admission of candidates to various colleges will depend on their fulfilling the eligibility criteria, conditions of admission and other requirements as laid down by the concerned institution/State Govt. which may be ascertained from the concerned college(s). (vi) The selection of eligible candidates will be made as per clarification conveyed vide this Ministry's letter of even number dated 27.2.2014 (copy enclosed). The copy of the merit list together with copies of allotment letters may be sent to this Ministry. 3. The selected candidates may be advised to report to the concerned college(s) for admission well in time. 4. Since the purpose of Central Pool Scheme is to make available qualified medical professionals in the beneficiary States/UTs, therefore it has been decided to instruct all the beneficiary States/UTs to ensure that its selected students to execute a bond undertaking to serve in the respective State/UT for a minimum period of 5 years after completing graduation. 5. It should be ensured that every selected candidate carries duly attested documents including his/her attested photograph, when reporting for admission. 6. An intimation may be sent to the undersigned within seven days of the actual admission of the selected candidate, alongwith a list of selected candidates and their marks. 7. If any of the allocated seats is not utilized, this Ministry should be informed forthwith. In case any seat remains un-utilised and this Ministry is not informed about it, giving the name of the college in which the seat is being surrendered, this Ministry may have no choice but to curtail the allotment of seats for that State in the succeeding years. 8. It is requested that the States/UTs should nominate their candidates on the basis of merit system devised by them keeping in view the above guidelines. The children of All India Service Officers posted in these States/UTs would also be eligible to participate in the said merit system. 9. The receipt of this communication may kindly be acknowledged immediately." The statement which was sought to be forwarded by the said letter dated September 2, 2014 contained the allocation of MBBS/BDS seats from the Central Pool quota to the said UT for the academic session 2014-15. The seats, inter alia, included two seats in the MBBS course in Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal (hereafter the said college). E. There is a document on record, i.e., a list, which reveals the identity of the 13 candidates from the said UT who were allotted to various medical colleges in West Bengal, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and New Delhi based on their respective rank in the AIPMT-2014. This list places the candidates in diverse categories, viz. I, II, III-A, III-B and IV. We have been informed that while category I denotes tribals, category II denotes deputationists and Central Government employees, category III denotes settlers and category IV denotes other locals having 10 years education in the said UT. The division of category III into A and B is with regard to settlers who settled in the UT prior to 1942 (III-A) and post 1947 (III-B). It seems that students belonging to such categories, as above, were only considered for nomination by the administration of the said UT. F. On the basis of their respective rank in the AIPMT-2014, the appellants, belonging to category III-B, were nominated by the said UT for admission in the said college. They were duly admitted and in due course of time, were promoted to the second year of the MBBS course. It was thereafter that the appellants found that they were on muddy ground. G. It seems to be the requirement of the 1997 Regulations that full particulars of those admitted in the MBBS course are required to be laid before the MCI. The principal of the said college, accordingly, had laid the particulars of the appellants before the MCI. The MCI, upon scrutiny of the marks obtained by the appellants at the AIPMT-2014, found that they had not secured 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together. The principal was, accordingly, called upon by the MCI to clarify, by letters dated March 4, 2015 and May 1, 2015, the basis for admitting the appellants in the said college despite their deficiency in the qualifying marks. By a letter dated May 14, 2015, the principal informed the MCI that the appellants having been nominated by the administration of the said UT by letter dated September 12, 2014, he had no other choice but to admit them. The MCI thereafter exchanged correspondence with the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Referring to the letter dated May 26, 2015 of the MCI, the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated June 10, 2015 informed the secretary of the MCI as follows: "Subject: Nomination of ineligible candidates by beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments for admission against Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats during the academic year 2014-15 Reported by Medical Council of India reg. Madam, I am directed to refer to your letter Nos. MCI_34(MC)/2014-108982 dated 26.5.2015 on the subject mentioned above and to say that you have requested for confirming the eligibility and nomination of the following Central Pool Nominee candidates: S. No. Name of candidate Nominating State/UT/Govt. Department % Score in Entrance Examinat ion Name of college 1. Ms. Ananya Halder A & N Islands 48.19% Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan , West Bengal 2. Ms. Nikita Das A & N Islands 48.47% Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan , West Bengal 2. In this regard you are informed that for the academic year 2014-15, relaxation in prescribed qualifying marks in Entrance Examination have not been granted for any category of students including Central Pool Quota students (except for foreign national students nominated by Ministry of External Affairs against Central Pool Seats as per their bilateral agreements with the friendly foreign countries). Therefore the eligibility of the above students may be decided by the Medical Council of India as per prevailing Regulations. 3. As regards confirmation that whether the above candidates are Nominees of Govt. of India it is informed that the allocation of Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats is made by this Ministry to beneficiary States/UTs/Govt. Departments and selection and nomination of candidates against the allocated seats is done by the beneficiaries themselves. Therefore, this confirmation may be obtained from their nominating authorities by MCI." H. Upon receiving such response, a sub-committee of the MCI considered the entire matter and recommended to the Executive Committee of the MCI that the appellants ought to be "discharged" for having secured 48.19% and 48.47% marks respectively, i.e., less than the minimum qualifying marks of 50%. Such decision was accepted by the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on October 28, 2015. By a letter dated November 18, 2015, the principal of the said college was directed to cancel the admission granted to the appellants. Acting on the basis of the decision of the MCI, the principal of the said college issued separate "discharge order" dated December 1, 2015 addressed to the appellants. I. Such cancellation of admission having been brought to the notice of the administration of the said UT, a flurry of letters followed at its instance. At least two letters issued in 2015 are on record dated December 4, 2015 and December 9, 2015. The first one was issued by the Assistant Secretary (Hr. Edn.) and the other by the Secretary (Education) of the administration. In both the letters it was highlighted that in nominating the appellants, the administration had followed paragraph 2 of the letter dated February 27, 2014 issued by the Director (ME) [which we have referred to in sub-paragraph C ]. J. The aforesaid letters addressed to the Assistant Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the MCI did not evoke any response. By a further letter dated January 28, 2016, the Secretary (Education) of the administration of the said UT requested the Joint Secretary as follows: "Kind reference is invited to this Administration's letter of even number dated 04.12.2015 and D.O Letter dated 09.12.2015 and subsequent reminder letter dated 13.01.2016 in the matter relating to cancellation of admission of the candidates namely Ms. Ananya Halder and Ms. Nikita Halder for MBBS course in Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan under Central Pool Quota, nominated by this Administration. The selection of the above referred candidates for MBBS course under Central Pool Quota have been made on the basis of clarification issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide letter dated 27.02.2014. As no direction were contained in the above referred letters regarding allotment of Central Pool MBBS and BDS seats to only qualified candidates. Hence, as per the above direction of the Ministry, this Administration has allotted 13 MBBS and 2 BDS seats to the students of A & N Islands under Central Pool for the academic year 2014-15 on the basis of marks obtained in AIPMT-2014. In view of above, it is requested that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the respective institutions to annul the cancellation of admission of the candidates nominated for MBBS and BDS course under Central Pool Quota by this Administration for the academic year 2014-15, as this jeopardizes their future career prospects leaving them in lurch." Unfortunately, there was no response once again. K. These material facts in the background, the appellants were obviously faced with a bleak future. The decision of the MCI directing cancellation of their admission while they were pursuing studies in the second year, without granting any opportunity of hearing, had wrecked their dreams of becoming doctors. Finding no other option, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by presenting separate writ petitions. While pleading why the impugned decisions should be set aside, it was also pleaded that there were other candidates, admitted in the MBBS course for the session 2014-2015 from the Central Pool quota along with the appellants on nomination made by administration of the said UT, who had secured lesser marks than them but their admissions had not been cancelled. A case of discrimination was, thus, sought to be set up. L. A learned Judge of this Court by separate orders of even date (March 21, 2016) while admitting the writ petitions and directing exchange of affidavits granted the appellants interim relief by restraining the MCI and the principal of the said college to give effect to the letters dated November 18, 2015 and December 1, 2015 until disposal of the writ petitions. M. None appeared for the said college to oppose the writ petition. Neither the administration of the said UT nor the Union of India (respondent no.1) chose to file counter affidavit. Only the MCI contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. It stressed that the 1997 Regulations had statutory force and, therefore, were binding in character. The affidavit also referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the regulations framed by the MCI to give effect to the object of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 are mandatory in nature and required to be followed without any deviation or departure. Interestingly, apart from placing its own version in the counter affidavit, the MCI did not specifically deal with the pleadings and as such no light was shed by it as to whether candidates, securing lesser marks than the appellants in the AIPMT-2014, were left undisturbed, as alleged. N. The writ petitions were enlisted for final hearing on July 11, 2018 before the learned Judge. His Lordship formed the impression that the appellants had not been successful in obtaining 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2). This was obviously a mistake, for, it was the case of the MCI itself that the appellants had failed to obtain 50% marks in the AIPMT-2014 and were, therefore, ineligible to take admission in the MBBS course. Although the mistake might seem to be innocuous, a reading of the judgment rendered by the learned Judge impels us to hold that the perceived failure of the appellants to obtain minimum 50% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) did weigh in His Lordship's mind; or else, how does one explain the absence of a remote reference in the impugned judgment to the deficiency of the appellants in securing the qualifying marks of 50% in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together at the AIPMT-2014, which was the cause of their downfall. Nowadays, in view of the ever-increasing demand for seats in the MBBS course and the fierce competition amongst the aspirants, obviously a student having failed to obtain even 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) cannot ever aspire to be a doctor (admission through the backdoor excepted); and, any person of reasonable prudence would reject such candidate's aspiration as far-fetched. We hold the view that this factor, i.e., the impression formed by the learned Judge that the appellants had failed to secure 50% marks at the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2), did certainly influence His Lordship to dismiss the writ petitions, considering His Lordship's observations made in the judgment that the appellants should have been aware of the minimum qualifying marks before seeking admission in the MBBS course, that the appellants were admitted possibly for collateral purposes and that His Lordship would have imposed costs but for the sole consideration that they are students. These do suggest a disturbed mind suspecting foul play at some level which might have enabled the appellants to secure admissions in the said college. We may note one other aspect considered by the learned Judge, i.e., cancellation of admission of the appellants being ab initio void, question of civil consequences did not arise and that they cannot claim (negative) equality by citing Article 14 of the Constitution. O. It is the dismissal of the writ petitions that have left the appellants thoroughly aggrieved and highly dissatisfied. It is obvious that appellants, who have been successful in crossing one hurdle after another while pursuing the MBBS course and are asked to call it a day in the midst of the final year, would be terribly distressed and make every attempt to ensure that their career prospects are not jeopardized. They are thus before us praying for ameliorative relief in exercise of our appellate powers.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has advanced submissions touching upon these elements of human sensitivity and has appealed to us to save them from being drowned in utter despair and frustration. He has also urged that regard being had to the fact that the appellants hail from families of settlers and the conditions prevailing in the said UT not at all comparable with the facilities available in the mainland of the country, the appellants deserve the Court's benevolence. After all there are not too many doctors in the said UT and having regard to the fact that the appellants, if at all they become doctors, have to spend the first few years to serve the people of the UT, the Court may decide in their favour particularly bearing in mind the fact that they are not to be blamed for the impasse in which they find themselves now.;