1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20/07/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.6014 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Minor A.Jenifer Antony Nizanthi, rep. by her father and natural guardian A.Antony Raj :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai. 2.Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. :Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of declaration, declaring that Clause IV (Method of Selection and Admission) of the prospectus pertaining to admission to Medical/Dental Courses 2011-2012 Session is unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner's daughter to take part in the counselling pertaining to admission to Medical/Dental Course 2011-2012. For petitioner :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For respondents:Mr.B.Pugalendhi,Special Government Pleader ORDER The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare that Clause IV (Method of Selection and Admission) of the prospectus pertaining to admission to Medical/Dental Courses 2011-2012 Session as unreasonable, cannot be granted in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in S.R.Bhupeshkar and others Vs. The Secretary, Selection Committee Sabarmathi Hostel, Kilpauk, Medical Hostel Campus, Madras and others reported in 1995 (2) L.W. 596, wherein at para No.71, the Full Bench, while considering the question regarding the relaxation of age and the prayer to declare that Clause 2.2 of the then prospectus, in so far as it states that no request for relaxation would be entertained, rejected the declaration sought for and held that the Government is entitled to fix age limits and there is no justification, whatever for interfering with the same. Earlier a Division of this Court considered the question in detail and answered it, in the negative in W.P.Nos.15231 and 16400 of 1993 by judgment dated 18.02.1994 and that the Full Bench was in agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench. 2.In yet another recent decision, reported in Akila Kannan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Public Health Department, Chennai and others reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 1044. the petitioner therein has challenged a similar Clause IV of the prospectus, issued for the academic year 2009-2010 for admission to MBBS course on the ground that the same is arbitrary and irrational. In the said case, though the petitioner therein had appeared for the High Secondary Examination held in March 2009, she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria in so far as prescription of age is concerned, that is completion of age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2009. The writ of declaration sought for was objected to on the ground as per Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act, the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government had made the Medical Council of India Regulation, 2000 and that the age limit has been fixed as 17 years for the admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S., in accordance with the Medical Council of India Regulation, 2000. It was also submitted that since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the power https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 vested in the regulation in accordance with the Act and the regulation made by the Council, it is not open to the petitioner therein to challenge clause IV of the prospectus issued by the second respondent therein. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions by the Medical Council of India; (a)Shri.D.R.Gautam v. University of Delhi and another (C.W.No.4057 of 1997) (b)Shri D.R.Gautam v. University of Delhi and another (L.P.A.No.274 of 1997) (c)Ms.Indu v. Central Board of Secondary Education and four others (C.W.No.1255 of 2000) (d)U.Anveshini v. Convenor EMCET 2000 Jawaharlal Nehru, Technological University, Hyderabad and three others (W.P.No.23356 of 2000) (e)Amarsinha v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Medical Eduction and Drugs Department and four others (W.P.No.1841 of 2003 batch) (f)Mohit Kumar Arora v. University of Delhi and two others (C.W.P.No.4353 of 2003) (g)Aarushi Jaswal v. Medical Council of India and another (C.W.P.No.4834 of 2009)." 3.Considering the rival submissions at para 12, 13 & 14, The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jaichandren has held as follows; "12.It has also been submitted that there is no power vested with the Indian Medical Council, or any other authority to relax the condition in favour of the candidates, in specific cases. Even if the candidate concerned had been permitted to write the 10th standard and the plus two examinations by granting an exemption, with regard to the minimum required age of the candidate, it cannot be a good reason for the granting of such an exemption in respect of the age limit fixed, under Clause 4 of the prospectus, issued by the second respondent, for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. admissions, for the academic session 2009-2010. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is devoid of merits. 13.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot be granted. Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, is in accordance with the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, and the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section19-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, provides that the Medical Council of India, may prescribe the minimum standards of Medical education for granting recognized medical qualifications by the Universities and the Medical institutions of India. 14. Section 33 of the Act empowers the Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Regulations of the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, are inapplicable to the present case. Nor is it the case of the petitioner that such provisions and regulations are arbitrary, contrary to the other laws in force, including the provisions of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Constitution of India. As such, it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. courses, for the academic session 2009-2010, stating that it is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 4.At para 15, the learned Judge has also held that since the petitioner therein would not be completing 17 years of age, on or before 31.12.2009, he is not qualified to apply for the M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses, for the academic session 2009-2010. It was held that merely for the reason that the petitioner therein had been permitted to write the10th standard and the plus two examinations, it cannot be a ground for granting the exemption in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the age limit prescribed under Clause 4 of the prospectus issued by the Selection Committee. 5.In view of the settled position, the relief sought for in this writ petition to declare the Clause IV (Method of Selection and Admission) of the prospectus pertaining to admission to Medical/Dental Courses 2011- 2012 Session, cannot be granted However, the fact remains that the petitioner has written her +2 examination in 2011. 6.Material on record shows that the Secretary, State Board of Matriculation & Anglo Indian School Leaving Certification Examination, Tamil Nadu has issued the 10th standard mark sheet, dated 23.05.2009. As against column, the date of birth of the petitioner, it is shown as 19.01.1995 and the petitioner is stated to have studied in St. Mary's Matriculation School, Idappadi. Similarly, in the transfer certificate issued by the Principal of the St. Mary's Matriculation School, dated 16.06.2009, for the academic year 2007-2009, that is 9th and 10th standards, the date of birth as against serial No.7 entered as per the Admission Register is shown as 19.01.1995. In the mark sheet issued by the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations, (Higher Secondary), Tamil Nadu, for the March 2011 Higher Secondary School Examination to the petitioner, said to have studied in Kuriniji Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Kavettipatti, Namakkal, the date of birth is shown as 19.01.1995. When that be so, the petitioner has produced a certificate, dated 27.05.2011, in the typed set, said to have been issued by St. Joseph's Matriculation School, Pudukkottai, that during the academic year 2004-2007, the petitioner was a bona fide student of standard VI to IX in the above said school and that her date of birth is 19.07.1994, as per the school records. 7.Placing reliance on the last certificate, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the date entered in the certificate, dated 27.05.2011, issued by the St. Joseph's Matriculation School, Pudukkottai is taken as evidence, as per clause IV of the prospectus for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. courses for the academic year, 2011, which states that candidate should be completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2011 and evidence should be produced to satisfy the age limit as prescribed, the candidature of the petitioner should be considered for the counselling to be held for the above said course. 8.It is well-known that entries in the mark sheet and transfer certificate issued by the school authorities are based on the declaration given by the student/parent/guardian in the school and therefore, the correctness of the same cannot be doubted. Perusal of the transfer certificate dated 16.06.2009 issued by the Principal, St. Mary's Matriculation School, Vellandivalasai, Idappadi, Salem District, also shows that such declaration has been given by the petitioner viz., A.Jenifer Antony Nizanthi and her parent/guardian A.Christy Bai. The declaration by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the parent or guardian at the end of the transfer certificate reads as follows; "I hereby declare that the particulars recorded against items 2 to 7 are correct and that no change will be demanded by me in future. (sd.) (sd.) Signature of the pupil signature of the Parent/Guardian" 9.As against the column No.7, the date of birth as entered in the admission register is 19.01.1995. The period of study in the above said institution was between 2007-2009, that is, 9th & 10th standards. As stated supra, the mark sheet for the Higher Secondary Examination issued by the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (Higher Secondary), Tamil Nadu also shows that her date of birth is 19.01.1995. When the declaration of the petitioner, as well as her parent/guardian, is to the effect that her date of birth is 19.01.1995, before the Principal, St.Mary's Matriculation School, Vellandivalasai, Idappadi, Salem District, it is not known as to how the Principal of St.Joseph's Matriculation School, Pudukkottai has issued a certificate, dated 27.05.2011, stating that the date of birth of the petitioner is 19.07.1994, as per the School records. 10.There is a glaring discrepancy in the certificate issued by the Principal of the school. In any event, as per the clause IV of the prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2010-2011, the petitioner should have completed the age of 17 years on or before 31.12.2011 and that, evidence should be produced. As the petitioner has produced two contradictory certificates, it is for the Selection Committee to consider the same as to whether the certificate dated 25.07.2011 can be accepted or not. Nevertheless, the authenticity of the declaration given by the petitioner/guardian, at the time of entering the date of birth in the Admission Register cannot be ignored. Since appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondents, as regards the admissibility of the certificate, dated 25.07.2011 as the proof for the age claim of the writ petitioner, this Court is inclined to give a direction to consider and take an appropriate decision as to whether the petitioner should be permitted to take part in the counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS course for this academic year 2011-2012. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai. 2.Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. gcg WP(MD)No.6014 of 2011 RP/27.07.2011/4P/3C. 20.07.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/