JOIN USApex court to hear St John's college plea on PG medical admission
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a petition filed by Bengaluru’s St John’s National Academy of Health Sciences against a ruling given by the High Court of Karnataka that called its postgraduate medical admission process violative of common counselling regulations.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra issued notices to the Union government and the Medical Council of India on Tuesday.
The court sought their responses by Thursday on the special leave petition filed by the college, which is an unaided minority educational institution.
In an urgent mentioning, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the college, said the high court had cancelled the entire admission process on the petition of a student who was otherwise not qualified.
The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Mohan M Shantanagoundar, asked Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha to take notice on behalf of the Union government and 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).
Dr Rachana Kishore Ubrangala, a candidate, had filed a writ petition before the high court for quashing the admission process adopted by the college. On 13 April, the court held that admission to any postgraduate course for the academic year 2017-2018, if contrary to Regulation 9A, was void.
Common counselling
The high court, however, allowed the college to participate in the common counselling provided in Regulation 9A and admit students for the academic year 2017-2018 on allotment of seats by the common counselling authority.
As regards the college’s petition that it is an unaided minority institution, the high court had said that such institutions were entitled to indicate their choice of preferences to the common counselling authority in admitting students, to the extent of their entire sanctioned intake, in conformity with their rights under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish institution) of the Constitution.
It had further said the common counselling authority should make allotment by following the principle of inter se merit within the categories of students the institution is at liberty to choose from.
DH News Service