RISHABH CHOUDHARY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 559, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] l S.C.R. 559 
RISHABH CHOUDHARY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 677 of 2016) 
JANUARY 23, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Education - Admissions - MBBS Course - Writ petitioner 
granted admission in MBBS by the respondent-Medical College, 
through an examination called CGMAT-2016, in contravention of 
Supreme Court's order dated 11'1' April 2016 directing that admission 
to MBBS course would only be through National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test (NEET) - Validity of - Held: Notification dated 21" 
Dec. 2010 issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) was 
resurrected by Supreme Court's order dated 11'" April 2016, 
recalling its judgment dated 18'" July 2013 in Christian Medical 
College, Vellore's case, implying that admission to MBBS course would 
only be through NEET-I and NEET-II and by no other process of 
admission - Thus, there was absolutely no occasion for the College 
to have conducted the counseling of the petitioner on 19'" April 
2016 i.e. after recall order dated 11'1' April 2016 - Further, the 
examination conducted by the college on 3"1 April, 2016 was also 
in defiance of the schedule prescribed by the MCI (and approved 
by Supreme Court) for holding MBBS entrance examinations -
Therefore, admission granted to petitioner set aside·- Petitioner, a 
victim of maladministration of the College and the State of 
Chhattisgarh and his plight is unfortunate but it cannot be helped -
Constitution of India - Art.32.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. By an order dated lllh April 2016 in Medical 
Council of India .v. Christian Medical College, Ve/lore & Ors. a 
bench of five learned judges of this Court recalled the decision 
rendered in *Christian Medical College, Ve/lore & Ors. v. Medical 
Council of India which quashed notification dated 21" Dec. 2010 
which made admissions to MBBS course possible only through 
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). [Paras 2, 3] [562-
B-D] 
559 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
A 
Christian Medical Cal/ege, Ve/lore & Ors. v. Union of 
India & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 -
referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, 
Ve/lore & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 342 - relied on. 
1.2 Thus, in view of this order and various other orders 
passed by this Court from time to time, it was clear that the 
notification dated 21" December, 2010 stood resurrected and that 
admissions to the MBBS course could only be through NEET-1 
and NEET-11. No other process of admission was permissible. 
[Pi,irft 111 1_564-B] 
Sanka/p Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & 
Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 487 - relied on. 
1.3 The examination CGMAT-2016 conducted by the 
College on 3'" April, 2016 was also contrary to the schedule 
prescribed by Medical Council of India (MCI) (and approved by 
this Court) for holding the MBBS entrance examinations. [Para 
13 J [564-D-EJ 
Ashish Ran Jan v. Union of India 2016 ( 4) SCALE 370 
- relied on. 
1.4 Furthermore, the petitioner's counseling was carried 
out on 19'" April, 2016 which was after the decision of this Court 
on 11" April, 2016 recalling the decision dated 18" July, 2013. 
There was absolutely no occasion for the College to have 
conducted the counseling after the recall order passed by this 
Court on 11" April, 2016. The effect of the recall order was that 
the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on 21" 
December, 2010
effectively stood revived in the sense that NEET 
was the only option available for admission to the MBBS course. 
The College and the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have been 
aware of these facts, but seem to have turned a blind eye not only 
to the 'ordei's of this Court b11t to the notifications issued by the· 
Medical Council of India. [Para 14] [564-G-H; 565-A-B] 
2. The College and the State of Chhattisgarh have not 
adhered to the law with the result that the petitioner became a 
victim of circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed
RISHABH CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim 
of their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is 
unfortunate but it cannot be helped. However, the petitioner is 
at liberty to proceed against the College and the State of 
Chhattisgarh in any appropriate manner. [Paras 15, 17] [565-C-
D, F] 
Case Law Reference 
[2Q13] 7 SCR 908 
referred to 
Para2 
(2016) 4 sec 342 
relied on 
Para3 
2016 (4) SCALE 370 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2016) 1 sec 487 
relied on 
Paras 8, 9 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
677 of 2016. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W. P. (C) No. 862 of 2016. 
Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Subramanian Prasad, 
Sr. Advs., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Krishna Kumar 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Singh, Mrityunjai Singh, Vaibhav Srivastava, Harsh Parashar, Advs. for 
E 
the Petitioner. 
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhaval 
Mohan, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ms. Vara Gaur, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ajay 
Sharma, Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Rekha Pandey, R. K. Rathore, 
G.S. Makker, Ajay Marwah, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Se Iv in Raja, Advs. 
F 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. W. P. (C) No. 677 OF 2016 I. The 
question for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of 
the Constitution concerns the validity of admission granted to the petitioner 
G 
by respondent No.3 (C.M.
Medical College & Hospital - for short the 
College) to the MBBS course. In our opinion, the admission granted by 
the College to the petitioner was unjustified and therefore his admission 
is set aside. 
2. On 21" December, 20 I 0 a gazette notification was is'sued by 
H
562 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
the Medical Council of India amending the "Regulations on Graduate 
Medical Education, 1997" to the effect, inter alia, that admissions to 
the MBBS course shall be based solely on marks obtained in the National 
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for short NEET). This notification was 
challenged by, amongst others, Christian Medical College Vellore in a 
batch of petitions before this Court which came to be allowed. The 
decision of this Court is dated 18" July, 2013 and is reported as Christian 
Medical College, Ve/lore & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.' The gazette 
notification dated 21" December, 20 I 0 was quashed. As a result, 
admission of a student to the MBBS course through NEET was no 
longer mandatory. 
3. Subsequently, petitions were filed for a review of the decision 
rendered by this Court and these review petitions ultimately came to be 
referred to a Bench of five learned judges of this Court. By an order 
dated I J 'h April, 2016 in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical 
College, Ve/lore & Ors.' the review petitions were allowed and the 
decision rendered by this Court on 18'h July, 2013 was recalled and it 
was directed that all the matters be considered afresh. 
4. Prior to this, the College wrote to the State ofChhattisgarh on 
or about 291h October, 2015 seeking permission to conduct examinations 
for the management quota and NR! seats for the MBBS course for the 
academic year
2016-17. The State ofChhattisgarh granted permission 
to the College to conduct examinations by its letter dated 5" November, 
2015. 
5. Consequent upon the permission granted by the State of 
Chhattisgarh to conduct examinations, the College issued an 
advertisement inviting applications on 28'h January, 2016 and eventually 
conducted the examination on 3"' April, 2016. The examination called 
CGMAT-2016 was monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and according 
to the College as well as the State there were no irregularities in the 
conduct of the examination. 
6. The result of the examination was declared on 11"April,2016 
and the petitioner qualified in the examination. On I 9'h April, 2016 that 
is after this Court had decided to review its decision and had recalled the 
judgment dated 18'" July, 2013, counseling was conducted for the 
petitioner and he was granted admission for the MBBS course by the 
1 (2014)2 sec 305 
'\2016) 4 sec 342
RISHABH CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
563 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
College after all formalities were completed. 
7. Atthis stage, it may be mentioned thatthe Medical Council of 
India published a notification in 2015 amending the "Regulations on 
Graduate Medical Education, 1997" whereby a time schedule for 
completion of the admission process for First MBBS Course was 
prescribed. This notification is reproduced and the Schedule given therein 
wa~ approved in Ashish Ranj11n v. Union of India' decided on 18"' 
January, 2016. As per the prescribed schedule, the conduct of entrance 
examination was to take place between I" and 7'h May and the result of 
the qualifying examination/entrance examination was to be declared by 
I'' June. In other words, the examination conducted by the College on 
3'd April, 2016 being CGMAT-2016 was in defiance of the notification 
issued by the Medical Council of India, and the schedule approved by 
this Court. Similarly, admission granted to the petitioner on 19"' April, 
2016 was notwithstanding the orders of this Court passed on l J 'h April, 
2016 read with the notification dated 21" December, 2010 and the 
schedule prescribed by the Medical Council oflndia. 
8. There are a few other orders passed by this Court which are 
of some significance. On 28'h April, 2016 it was directed by this Court in 
Sankalp Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors." that 
NEET Phase I would be held in terms of the notification dated 21" 
December,
2010 issued by the Medical Council oflndia. TheAll lndia 
Pre-Medical Test would be held on 1" May, 2016. Thereafter, Phase II 
ofNEET for the left out candidates would be held on 24'h July, 2016. It 
was made clear that since the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2013 
had been recalled, the notification dated 21" December, 20 I 0 was in 
operation. 
9. By an order dated 6"' May, 2016 in Sankalp Charitable Trust 
it was made clear that no examination shall be permitted to be held for 
admission for MBBS studies by any private college or association or 
any private/deemed University. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
10. Subsequently on 9'h May, 2016 this Court declined to modify 
G 
the order dated 28'h April, 2016. An order was also passed making it 
clear that all such candidates who could not appear in NEET-1 and those 
who had appeared but had an apprehension that they had not prepared 
well, would be permitted to appear in NEET-11 subject to an option from 
'r2016) 11sec22s 
• (2016) 1sec487 
H
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
these candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1. It was further 
clarified that only NEETwould enable students to get admission to MBBS 
studies. 
I 1. In view of all these orders passed by this Court from time to 
time, it is more than abundantly clear that the notification dated 21" 
B 
December, 20 I 0 stood resurrected and that admissions to the MBBS 
course could only through NEET-1 and NEET-11. No other process of 
admission was permissible. Given this background, the Director of 
Medical Education in Chhattisgarh wrote to the College on or about l 3'h 
July, 2016 to take steps to cancel all the admissions made by the College 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
in terms of the examination CGMAT-2016 held for students for the 
management quota and NRI quota. Eventually by a letter dated 28'h 
July, 2016 the Director of Medical Education in Chhattisgarh 
recommended to the College to cancel admissions made to the MBBS 
course. This prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court. 
12. It is submitted and prayed by the petitioner that since he had 
already been granted admission by the College after the examination 
CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College and supervised and 
monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and in which there were no 
allegations of impropriety, his admission should not be disturbed. It is 
submitted that the petitioner was certainly not at fault and there is no 
reason why he should be the
victim of an apparent wrong committed by 
the College as also by the State of Chhattisgarh . 
. 13. We have considered the su.bmissions made by learned counsel 
appearing on behalfofthe petitioner and the College supporting him but 
are not inclined to accept them. It is quite clear that the examination 
CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College on 3'' April, 2016 contrary 
to the schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India (and approved 
by this Court) for holding the MBBS entrance examinations. The question 
is not of any impropriety in the conduct of the examination but the question 
is really one of adhering to a particular discipline laid down by the Medical 
Council oflndia and approved by th is Court. 
14.Furthermore we find that counseling was carried out insofar 
as the petitioner is concerned on 19'h April, 2016 which is after the 
decision of this Court on J J •h April, 2016 recalling the decision dated 18"' 
July, 2013. There was absolutely no occasion for the College to have 
conducted the counseling after the recall order passed by this Court on 
' :..
R!SHABH CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
11 "'Apri I, 2016. The effect of the recall order, as mentioned above, was 
that the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on 21" 
. December, 2010 effectively stood revived in the sense that N EET was 
the only option available for admission to the MBBS course. The College 
and the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have been aware of these facts, 
but seem to have turned a blind eye not only to the orders of this Court 
but to the notifications issued by the Medical Council oflndia. 
15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed for 
the present state of affairs - whether it is the students or the College or 
the State of Chhattisgarh. The question is really whether the rule of law 
should prevail ornot. In our opinion, the answer is unambiguously in the 
affirmative. The College and the State ofChhattisgarh have not adhered 
to the law with the result that the petitioner became a victim of 
circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against the College 
and the State ofChhattisgarh being a victim of their maladministration. 
The plight of the petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped. 
16. We were told during the course of submissions that some 
similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified in the 
examination. Those students like the petitioner who did not participate in 
NEET and placed their trust only in the College and the State of
Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that gamble has unfortunately not 
succeeded. While our sympathies may be with the petitioner and similarly 
placed students, we cannot go contrary to the orders passed by this 
Court from time to time only for their benefit. 
17. Under the circumstances, we find no ground has been made 
out for granting relief to the petitioner. There is no merit in this writ 
petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that 
the petitioner is at liberty to proceed against the College and the State of 
Chhattisgarh in any appropriate manner. 
W.P. (C} No. 862 OF 2016 
18. We find no reason to entertain this petition under Article 32 of · 
565 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the Constitution and it is accordingly dism;ssed. 
G 
19. In view of the order passed in the writ petition the application 
for impleadment stands disposed of. 
Divya Pandey 
Writ Petitions dismissed. 
H 
..