/2022 INSC 0927/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).3507­3508 of 2020)
BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION 
OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                 …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DR.   PRIYAMBADA   SHARMA   &   OTHERS                       …
RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24800 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24021 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24023 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24020 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
1

(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).27463 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).26970 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).7077 of 2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).7111 of 2021)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Board of Governors of Medical Council of India (now, “The
National   Medical   Commission”)   has   filed   these   appeals   assailing
the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Calcutta   directing   respondent
no.2­West   Bengal   University   of   Health   Sciences   to   admit   the
respondent­candidates   initially   by   interim   orders   dated   04 th
  June
2019,   16 th
  July,   2019   and   30 th
  July,   2019   passed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   of   Calcutta   granting   provisional
admission pursuant to interim orders to the student­applicants in
2

post­graduate medical courses beyond the cut­off date in complete
ignorance of their placement in the order of merit in post­graduate
medical   courses,   which   were   later   disposed   of   by   an   Order   dated
4 th
  November,   2019   on   the   premise   that   since   the   respondent­
students   have   undergone   six   months   of   post­graduate   medical
course,   their   provisional   admission   stand   regularized   and   later
directed to be treated as a regular post­graduate student. 
3. Facts have been noticed from Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) Nos.3507­
3508 of 2020 and Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.27463 of 2019.
4.   It   is   not   disputed   that   the   respondent­students   are   MBBS
Doctors   and   appeared   in   NEET   (PG)­2019   entrance   examination
seeking   admission   in   State   quota   seats   in   post­graduate   medical
courses   in   medical   colleges   of   the   State   of   West   Bengal   for   the
academic year 2019­2020.
5. The result of NEET­PG was declared by the National Board of
Education   (NBE)   on   31 st
  January,   2019.   The   minimum   cut­off
qualifying marks for NEET examination are as follows:­
1) Unreserved category ­ 50 th
 percentile – 340/1200 marks
2) Reserved category(SC/ST/OBC)­40 th
 percentile – 292/1200
marks
3

3) PwD – 45 th
 percentile – 317/1200 marks
 The NEET marks and the rank of the respondent­students are
as under:­
1) Priyambada   Sharma­NEET   Score:386/1200;   NEET
Rank:57960
2) Priti Dhara ­ NEET Score:386/1200; NEET Rank:57948
3) Alankret   Dhillon   ­   NEET   Score:387/1200;   NEET
Rank:57581
4) Anirban Bose ­ NEET Score:318/1200; NEET Rank:78437
5) Mohd.   Asif   Kabir   ­   NEET   Score:341/1200;   NEET
Rank:71142
6) Kaustav De ­ NEET Score:626/1200; NEET Rank:24442
7) Sujan   Kr.   Ghosh   ­   NEET   Score:403/1200;   NEET
Rank:53324
8) Pushpak Ghose ­ NEET Score:626/1200; NEET Rank:12177
9) Sanjib   Kr.   Choudhary   ­   NEET   Score:319/1200;   NEET
Rank:78012
6. The   admission   schedule   for   the   academic   year   2018­19
onwards   for   post­graduate   courses   as   provided   in   the   Medical
Council   of   India   Postgraduate   Medical   Education   Regulations,
2000(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Regulations   2000”)
amended upto May, 2018 is as follows:­
In   the   above   Appendix   the   time   schedule   with   regard   to   Broad
Speciality   has   been   substituted   with   the   following   in   terms   of
4

Notification published in the Gazette of India on 20.02.2018 and
05.04.2018.
Admission   schedule   from   the   academic   year   2018­19   onwards   for
Postgraduate courses (broad speciality):­
S.No Schedule   for
Admission Central Counselling
        State
Counsellin
gAll   India
Quota Deemed   +
Central
Institute
1 Conduct of Exam By 10 th
 January
2 Declaration   of
result By end of January
3 1 st
  Round   of
Counselling 12 th
 March­
24 th
 March 12 th
March –
24 th
March 25 th
March –
5 th
 April
4 Last Date of joining 3 rd
 April 3 rd
 April 12 th
 April
5 2 nd
  Round   of
Counselling 6 th
 April –
12 th
 April 6 th
 April –
12 th
 April 15 th
 April
– 26 th
April
6 Last date of joining  22 nd
 April 22 nd
 April 3 rd
 May
7 Mop up Round  12 th
 May –
22 nd
 May 4 th
 May –
8 th
 May
8 Last date of joining  26 th
 May 12 th
 May
9 Forwarding   the   list
of students in order
of   merit   equalling
to   ten   times   the
number   of   vacant
seats   to   the
Medical Colleges by
the   Counselling
Authority  27 th
 May
13 th
 May
10 Last date of joining 31 st
 May 18 th
 May
 
   Note:
1. All India   Quota  Seats  remaining  vacant  after   last   date  for  joining
i.e. 10 th
 May will be deemed to be converted into State Quota.
2. Institute/College/Courses   permitted   after   28 th
  February   will   not
be   considered   for   admission/allotment   of   seats   for   current
academic year.
5

3. In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not
be extended after 31 st
 May.
4. For the purpose of ensuring faithful obedience to the above time­
schedule, Saturday, Sunday or Holidays (except National Holiday)
shall be treated as working day.
5. The   following   Matrix   shall   be   applicable   with   regard   to
permissibility   to   students   to   exercise   fresh   choice   during
counselling:­
Round  Fre
e 
Exit Exit   with
forfeiture   of
fees Ineligible for
further
counselling Amount   of
registration
fee
AIQ I/ 
Deemed
AIQ II/
Deemed If   not
joine
d If joined Government
­Rs.25,000
(half   for
SC/ST/OBC)
Deemed   –
Rs.2,00,000
State
Quota I
State 
Quota II If   not
joine
d If joined Government
­Rs.25,000
(half   for
SC/ST/OBC)
Private   –
Rs.2,00,000
State Quota
Mop­Up
Deemed 
Mop­Up
7. The admission schedule has to be rigidly followed in admission
to   the   post­graduate   courses   and   Note   3   appended   thereto   clearly
stipulates   that,   in   any   circumstances,   last   date   for
admission/joining   will   not   be   extended   beyond   31 st
  May   and   no
6

deviation   from   the   admission   schedule   is   permissible   and   this
schedule has been fixed by this Court pursuant to the judgment in
Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another vs. Union of India and Others 1
followed   in   Priya   Gupta   vs.   State   of   Chhattisgarh   and   Others 2
and  Ashish Ranjan and Others vs. Union of India and Others 3
.
8. It   will   be   relevant   to   note   that   this   Court   in   Mridul
Dhar(Minor)   and   Another   (supra)   noted   that   there   was   no
consistency   in   fixing   the   time   schedule   for   admissions   to   medical
courses   and   there   were   much   irregularities   in   maintaining   a
prescribed   schedule   which   has   been   exploited   by   medical   colleges
by   admitting   undeserved   students   and   that   was   affecting   the
academic session. This Court intervened in the matter and fixed the
time schedule for admission to the medical colleges including post­
graduate admissions and accordingly, the schedule was notified by
the   Medical   Council   of   India   and   direction   was   given   for   strict
adherence   of   rules   which   was   later   reiterated   in   Priya   Gupta
(supra)  followed by  Ashish Ranjan and Others(supra).
1  (2005) 2 SCC 65
2  (2012) 7 SCC 433
3  (2016) 11 SCC 225
7

9.   This   Court   specifically   gave   its   approval   to   the   admission
schedule which has been prescribed under the broucher of Medical
Council   of   India   (now,   The   National   Medical   Commission)   for   the
academic   year   2018­19   onwards   for   the   post­graduate   medical
courses   which   the   Commission   has   to   strictly   follow   and   no
deviation   is   permissible   in   any   circumstances   and   accordingly   last
date for admission/joining will not be extended after 31 st
 May. 
10. It reveals from the record that after the admission/counselling
process   was   over   on   31 st
  May,   2019,   approximately   153   seats
remained vacant in State Quota of the post­graduate medical seats
for   the   academic   year   2019­20   and   the   respondent­students   have
failed   in   their   attempt   after   participating   in   the   last   counselling   in
securing   admission   to   post­graduate   medical   seat   in   any   of   the
specialty because of their much lower rank in the order of merit. 
11. At   this   stage,   the   respondent   Dr.   Priyambada   Sharma   and
others filed their writ petitions before the High Court under Article
226   of   the   Constitution   with   the   grievance   that   although   the   final
round   of   counselling   on   31 st
  May,   2019   is   over,   the   post­graduate
seats  for   academic  session   2019­20  are  still  available/lying   vacant
8

and   at   least   against   the   vacant   seats,   they   may   be   considered   for
admission in the post­graduate medical course.
12.   The  learned  Single   Judge  by   interim   orders  dated   04 th
  June,
2019,   16 th
  July,   2019   and   30 th
  July,   2019   in   a   batch   of   writ
petitions   directed   the   appellant   to   grant   provisional   admissions   to
the students in post­graduate medical courses by ignoring the cut­
off   date   i.e.   31 st
  May   and   also   ignoring   the   principle   of   merit   and
these   interim   orders   were   later   made   absolute   by   order   dated   04 th
November, 2019 on the premise that the students have joined post­
graduate   medical   courses   and   have   undergone   training/education
for   six   months   or   more   and   accordingly,   such   admissions   are
regularized   and   each   of   them   who   have   joined   post­graduate
medical course shall be treated as normal post­graduate student.
13.   These orders became a subject matter of challenge in special
leave petitions before this Court and the interim orders and also the
final   order   dated   04 th
  November,   2019   passed   by   the   High   Court
were stayed by this Court in the respective special leave petitions. It
is   informed   that   so   far   as   respondent   Dr.   Priyambada   Sharma   is
concerned,   she   has   not   continued   her   studies   since   September,
9

2019.     At   the   same   time,   in   Civil   Appeal   @   SLP(C)   No.27463   of
2019,   respondent­students   were   allowed   to   pursue   the   course   by
the University despite the stay order granted by this Court. 
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court
has   committed   manifest   error   in   directing   the   provisional
admissions   in   this   batch   of   appeals   in   post­graduate   medical
courses   in   the   academic   year   2019­20   beyond   31 st
  May   and   that
apart, the admission could not have been made on the principle of
first­cum­first­serve   regardless   of   their   placement   in   the   order   of
merit   which   is   the   touchstone   for   admissions   to   the   post­graduate
medical   courses.   Such   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   are   not
legally sustainable and deserve to be set aside.
15.  Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that merely
because some of the students have been allowed to be continued on
provisional basis in post­graduate medical courses despite the stay
order   passed   by   this   Court,   no   sympathy   can   be   claimed   by   them
and such misplaced sympathy indeed will lay down a bad precedent
and   submits   that   all   such   interim   orders   and   the   provisional
admissions   made   of   the   respective   respondents   students   in   post­
10

graduate medical courses for the academic year 2019­20 deserve to
be quashed and set aside.
16. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   further   submits   that   in
numerous   cases,   petitions   have   been   filed   in   this   Court   seeking
extension   of   time   either   on   account   of   some   particular   exigency
faced   by   any   individual   college   or   university   but   generally   on   the
ground that large number of seats for post­graduate courses either
remained   unfilled   or   are   lying   vacant   and   this   Court   has   declined
such request with the direction that time schedule must be strictly
adhered to. 
17. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents
submits that either of the respondent­student was not at fault and
only because of the interim orders passed by the High Court in the
first instance, the University could not conduct the second round of
counselling   within   the   time   schedule   and   pursuant   to   the   order   of
the   Division   Bench   dated   30 th
  May   2019,   the   second   round   of
counselling   was   held   on   31 st
  May,   2019   and   on   the   same   day,
admissions to post­graduate medical courses were closed.   Only to
meet out the aforesaid difficulty, interim orders were passed by the
11

High   Court   in   the   interest   of   justice.     In   the   first   instance,   the
respondent­students   are   deprived   from   participating   in   a   fair
manner in the second round of counselling which was held on 31 st
May,   2019   and   that   was   the   reason   for   which   the   respondents
approached   the   High   Court   by   filing   the   writ   petitions   and   taking
the legitimate grievance of the students, interim orders were passed
granting   provisional   admissions   to   post­graduate   medical   courses
without   disturbing   the   admissions   already   made   and   the   students
have   become   the   victims   of   delay   in   holding   the   second   round   of
counselling for the academic year 2019­20. 
18. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
students   were   not   at   fault   and   any   intervention   made   by   the   High
Court   while   passing   the   interim   orders   in   the   first   instance
interfering the admission process duly notified, in no manner, could
be attributed to the students but ultimately down the line, it is the
students   who   suffer   and   at   least   such   of   the   students   who   have
completed their course or are at the verge of completing the course,
be   permitted   to   complete   the   course   and   to   appear   in   the
examination and if that is not being permitted in the given facts and
12

circumstances,   they   will   only   lose   three   precious   years   of   their   life
and neither the appellant nor anyone else is going to be benefitted. 
19. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
20. That   so   far   as   the   time   schedule   prescribed   by   the   Medical
Council   of   India   in   its   Regulations,   2000   of   which   reference   has
been   made   for   the   academic   year   2019­20   for   admission   to   the
post­graduate   medical   courses   is   concerned,   it   has   to   be   strictly
followed and that, in any circumstance, is not to be deviated.   Last
date for admissions to the post­graduate medical course will not be
extended   after   31st   May   and   the   schedule   has   been   prescribed   in
compliance   of   the   judgments   of   this   Court   of   which   reference   has
been made in  Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another(supra)  followed by
this   Court   in   Priya   Gupta   (supra)     and   Ashish   Ranjan   and
Others(supra)   and   this   Court   has   consistently   held   that   the
schedule for   admission  to  the  post­graduate  medical courses must
be followed strictly leaving no discretion to any authority to permit
admissions   over   the   cut­off   date   under   schedule   for   admission   to
post­graduate medical courses i.e. 31 st
 May.
13

21. That   even   when   the   complaints   are   made   to   this   Court   that
large number of seats are lying vacant seeking extension of time to
fill   those   unfilled   undergraduate/post­graduate   seats   of   medical
courses, this Court always declined such requests and directed that
schedule must be strictly adhered to.
22. This   Court   in   Education   Promotion   Society   for   India   and
Another vs. Union of India and Others 4
  held as under:­
“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 PG 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
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.”
4  (2019) 7 SCC 38 
14

23. Further,   this   Court   in   Dr.   Astha   Goel   and   Others   vs.
Medical Counselling Committee and Others 5
  held as under:­
“23.   Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
two   decisions   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand   and   when   the
Medical   Counselling   Committee   and   the   Union   of   India   have   to
adhere to the time schedule for completing the admission process
and   when   the   current   admission   of   NEET­PG­2021   is   already
behind   time   schedule   and   ever   after   conducting   eight   to   nine
rounds   of   counselling,   still   some   seats,   which   are   mainly   non­
clinical courses seats have remained vacant and thereafter when
a   conscious   decision   is   taken   by   the   Union   Government/the
Medical Counselling Committee, not to conduct a further Special
Stray   Round   of   counselling,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   same   is
arbitrary. The decision of the Union Government and the Medical
Counselling   Committee   not   to   have   Special   Stray   Round   of
counselling   is   in   the   interest   of   Medical   Education   and   Public
Health.  There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or
quality   of   Medical   Education,   which   may   ultimately   affect   the
Public Health.
26.   At   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   is   observed   and   held   that   even
after   eight   to   nine   rounds   of   counselling,   out   of   40,000   seats,
1456   seats   have   remained   vacant,   out   of   which   approximately,
more   than   1100   seats   are   non­clinical   seats,   which   every   year
remain   vacant,   of   which   the   judicial   notice   has   been   taken   by
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Education   Promotion   Society   for
India   (supra).”
24. In the  given facts and circumstances, in our  considered view,
the   interim   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   granting   provisional
admissions   in   the   post­graduate   medical   courses   in   the   months   of
June   and   July,   2019   by   orders   dated   04 th
  June,   2019,   16 th
  July,
5  2022 SCC OnLine SC 734
15

2019   and   30 th
  July,   2019   which   were   later   made   absolute   by   an
order dated 04 th
 November, 2019 are not legally sustainable.
25. The feeble submission made by the respondents’ counsel that
a   sympathetic   view   may   be   taken   on   the   premise   that   they   have
been   allowed   to   continue   in   their   respective   post­graduate   medical
courses   for   quite   some   time   or   few   of   them   have   completed   the
course in the         interregnum despite the order of stay granted by
this Court and the reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in
Medical  Council of India vs. Ritwik & Others 6
,  in our view, may
not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the
student   was   selected   in   the   counselling   in   the   first   year   MBBS
course   but   was   not   granted   admission   due   to   his   inability   to   pay
the   fee   before   the   last   date   i.e.   31 st
  August,   2018   and   he   was
allowed to continue and pursue the course by interim order passed
by   this   Court.     In   the   given   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   his
admission   was   approved   under   the   order   of   this   Court.     As   far   as
the   cases   of   present   respondents   are   concerned,   they   have
participated in the second round of counselling but failed to get any
6  2021 SCC OnLine SC 3280
16

seat   in  the   post­graduate   medical   course   because   of   lower   rank   in
order   of   merit   and   by   interim   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court,
provisional admissions were granted to them ignoring the principle
of merit which cannot be countenanced by this Court.
26. In   our   considered   view,   no   sympathy   can   be   shown   to   such
students who have not only  entered/admitted after 31 st
  May of the
year   but   their   admissions   were   completely   in   contravention   to   the
Regulations,  2000  and provisional  admissions were granted by  the
High   Court   ignoring   the   principle   of   merit   which   is   the   sole
touchstone for admission to the post­graduate courses based on the
NEET examination, 2019 where admissions are made strictly in the
order of merit­cum­preference and despite the stay order passed by
this Court, if they are allowed to continue in post­graduate medical
courses,   the   same   would   be   completely   illegal   and   such
contemptuous   action   on   the   part   of   the   authorities,   cannot   be
approved by this Court. 
27. Consequently,   the   appeals   succeed   and   are   accordingly
allowed.   The   impugned   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   the
respective appeals are hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.
17

28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
       …………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 17, 2022
 
18