St John's college plea on PG medical admission accepted by SC
New Delhi:Bengaluru's St John's National Academy of Health Sciences's petition in the Supreme Court against a ruling given by the High Court of Karnataka, calling its postgraduate medical admission process violative of common counselling regulations has been accepted by the apex Court.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra issued notices to the union government and the Medical Council of India on Tuesday. It has sought the responses of the two on the special leave petition filed by the college, which is an unaided minority educational institution.
Kapil Sybil, a senior advocate appearing on behalf of the college, stated that the High Court had done away with the entire admission process of the institution, based on a petition filed by a student,who was not even qualified.
The bench which also comprised of Justice Mohan M Shantanagoundar and Justice A M Khanwilkar asked Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, to on behalf of the Union government respond to the college’s petition.
Section 10D of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Regulations 9 & 9A of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, provide for a mechanism for merit-based selection to all postgraduate courses, in all medical institutions in the country on the basis of the merit list of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).
A petitioner candidate, Dr Rachana Kishore Ubrangala, had filed a writ petition before the High Court for cancelling the St John’s National Academy of Health Sciences admission process. On 13 April, 2017 the court held that admission to any postgraduate course for the academic year 2017-2018, if contrary to Regulation 9A, was void.
The High Court, however, allowed the college to participate in the common counselling conducted within the provisions of Regulation 9A and admit students for the academic year 2017-2018, through seat allotments done by the common counselling authority.
As regards to the college’s petition claiming to be an unaided minority institution, the High Court had said that such institutions had the right to indicate their preferences to the common counselling authority in admitting students, pertaining to their sanctioned intake, in conformity with their rights under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish institution) of the Constitution.
The Court further added that the common counselling authority should make allotment by following the principle of inter se merit within the categories of students, the institution has a stake to choose from, reports the Deccan Herald.