EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2019] 8 S.C.R. 794, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND
ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2019)
JUNE 21, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Extension of time for
carrying out counselling for P.G. courses – Petitioner no.1-Society
sought extension of time for carrying out counselling for medical
colleges/deemed Universities, since large number of seats in these
colleges for P.G. courses were lying vacant – Petitioner no.1 relied
on the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 11.10.2017 in
Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 1043 of 2017 in Interlocutory
Application (I.A.) No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No. 743 of 2017
wherein it was permitted to hold mop-up counselling for unfilled
super-speciality seats lying vacant – Held: Petitioners sought 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 P.G. courses were lying
vacant – Merely because the seats were lying vacant, is not a ground
to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up
vacant seats – The fixed time schedule to fill up seats must be followed
– Insofar as order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned, it was related to
super-speciality seats and Supreme Court had extended the date
for counselling on the request of the Central Government – Further,
the said order
was only applicable to the said academic year – In
the instant case, extension cannot be granted just because some
seats were lying vacant without any justification.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Except the orders in M.A. No.1043 of 2017 in
I.A.No. 96448 of 2017 in W.P. (C) No.743 of 2017, all the orders
are either state specific or college/university specific. They have
been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each
particular case and in most of the orders it is clearly mentioned
that the orders shall not be treated as precedent.  As far as the
order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned it related to super-speciality
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 794
794
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
seats and this Court on the request of the Central Government
extended the date for counselling by 10 days from the date of the
order and further granted 4 days for the candidates to join.  The
order also clearly states that it is only applicable to the said
academic year. [Para 5] [797-F-G]
2. 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 P.G. 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 non-clinical subjects.
There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation
with regard to the remaining 400-500 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 post-graduation in non-clinical 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 this Court will
permit
violation of schedule and grant extension, it will lead to
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. [Para 6] [798-A-D]
Mridul Dhar and Ors.  v.  Union of India (UOI) and
Ors  (2005) 2 SCC 65 : [2005] 1 SCR 380 ; Priya
Gupta v.  State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC
433 : [2012] 5 SCR 768 ; Ashish Ranjan and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 1 SCR 380
referred to
Para 3
[2012] 5 SCR 768
referred to
Para 3
(2016) 11 SCC 225
referred to
Para 3
EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA v. UNION
OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
747 of 2019.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka, Advs.
for the petitioners.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Dr. Nishesh
Sharma, Shubhendu Anand, Vaibhav Chadha, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Vivek Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms.
Prassana Mohan,  Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner no.1 Society which
claims to represent a large number of educational institutions including
medical colleges running post-graduate (P.G.) medical courses, has prayed
that this Court may grant extension of time to respective medical colleges/
deemed universities for carrying out counselling for P.G. courses since
large number of seats in these colleges are lying vacant.
2. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
urges that these colleges have spent a huge amount of money on the
infrastructure of the colleges.  He submits that there is an acute shortage
of doctors in India and, in fact, the Union of India has permitted increase
of seats in government medical colleges without increase of
infrastructure.  According to him, this shows that the intention of the
State is to ensure that more and more doctors pass out and treat the
patients.  He also relied upon a large
number of orders wherein extension
has been granted in granting admission in medical colleges in graduate
course, P.G. courses and super-speciality courses.  He has specifically
drawn our attention to the orders passed by this Court on 11.10.2017 in
Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No.1043 of 2017 in Interlocutory
Application (I.A.) No.96448 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, wherein
on the request of the Central Government the Director General of Health
Services (DGHS) was permitted to hold mop-up counselling for 553
unfilled super-speciality seats lying vacant.  He submits that a similar
order may be passed in this case.
3. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing for the Union
of India has opposed the said application and submits that the sanctity of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
the earlier orders passed by this Court in Mridul Dhar and Ors.  vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors1 ; Priya Gupta vs.  State of
Chhattisgarh and Ors.2 and Ashish Ranjan and Ors.  vs.  Union of
India (UOI) and Ors.3, will be set at naught if the petition is allowed.
4. This Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) noted that there
was no consistency in fixing the time schedule for admissions to medical
colleges and discrepancies and irregularities in maintaining a prescribed
schedule were being exploited by many private medical colleges by
admitting undeserved students and charging high fees.  This Court
referred to the schedules notified by the Medical Council of India and
directed strict adherence of those schedules.  This was reiterated in
Priya Gupta’s case (supra). In Ashish Ranjan’s case (supra), this Court
specifically gave its approval to the time schedule.  The schedule as
approved by this Court provides that the declaration of result has to be
done by the end of January and the first round of counselling for All
India quota seats, deemed and central institutes has to be completed by
24th March and state counselling should be completed by 5th April, second
round of counselling by 12th and 26th April respectively and mop-up round
by 8th May for state and the 22nd May for Deemed Universities and
Central Institutes.  Last date of joining should be 31st May for deemed
and central institutes and 18th May for the states.  We have been informed
that this date
has been extended to 31st May for states also.  The date
was extended to 17.06.2019 for the State of Maharashtra, vide order of
this Court, due to certain issues specific to the State of Maharashtra.
5. We have carefully gone through the orders relied upon by the
petitioners.  Except the orders in M.A. No.1043 of 2017 in I.A.No.96448
of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2017, all the orders are either state specific
or college/university specific.  They have been passed in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each particular case and in most of the orders
it is clearly mentioned that the orders shall not be treated as precedent.
As far as the order dated 11.10.2017 is concerned it related to super-
speciality seats and this Court on the request of the Central Government
extended the date for counselling by 10 days from the date of the order
and further granted 4 days for the candidates to join.  The order also
clearly states that it is only applicable to the said academic year.
1 (2005) 2 SCC 65
2 (2012) 7SCC 433
3 2016 (11) SCC 225
EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA v. UNION
OF INDIA [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
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 P.G. 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 non-clinical subjects.  There is no material
on record to show as to what is the situation with regard to the remaining
400-500 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 post-graduation in non-clinical
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.
7. We may note that in the schedule prescribed, there are
three
rounds of counselling, the first round, the second round and the mop-up
round.  The mop-up round was to be completed by 31.5.2019 and if
some seats remain vacant even after the mop-up round it cannot be
helped.  Extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying
vacant without there being any other justification.
8. We find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal dismissed.