D. Biswas, J.
1. This petition has been taken up for hearing with priority as it related to the dispute raised pertaining to admission to 1st year MBBS Course in the Medical Colleges in the State of Assam.
2. Writ petitioner is a member of Scheduled Trible (Plains) Community. The petitioner appeared in All India Secondary School Examination (Matriculation) in the year 2001 under the Central Board of Secondary Education and came out successful securing 85% of marks. Thereafter, she pursued her Higher Secondary Course in science stream from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dullajan, Assam and came out successful in the said examination in the year 2003 having secured 78% of marks. The petitioner appeared in the Joint Entrance Test Examination, 2003 for admission in medical college in the State of Assam. The result of the aforesaid test was declared on 12.7.2003, and the petitioner stood selected in order of merit against Scheduled Tribe (Plains) quota. The result sheet annexed as Annexure-E to the writ petition shows that her position in order of merit amongst the Schedule Tribe (Plains) candidates is 14th. She had scoured 67 marks in the qualifying examination. Having been empanelled in the select list, the petitioner was under the expectation that she would be given a seat in any of the three medical colleges in the State of Assam. But to her dismay and frustration, her candidature stood rejected on the ground that she had not attained the age of 17 years on 1st of August, 2003 as per rules framed by the State Government.
3. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility criteria as per Medical Council of India guidelines require that a candidate must be 17 years of age on the 31st of December of the year of admission to the MBBS Course. According to Mr. Choudhury, the writ petitioner would have been more than 17 years on the 31st day of December and, therefore, she had the eligibility for admission as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. According to Mr. Choudhury, the rules framed by the State Government, namely, the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1996 also incorporated the aforesaid guidelines of the Medical Council of India in Clause (f) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Abruptly, the respondent authority by an amendment carried out on 12.6.2003 substituted the aforesaid clause prescribing the minimum qualifying age for admission as 17 years as on the 1st day of August of the year of admission. According to Mr. Choudhury, this amendment is in conflict with the guidelines of the Medical Council of India and, therefore, cannot govern the situation in so far the admission to Medical Colleges is concerned. In order to bring home this contention, Mr. Choudhury referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 258. The aforesaid decision was rendered on a different factual matrix, but in the concluding part in para-23, the primacy of the guidelines prescribed by the Medical Council of India has been upheld. Yet, in another case, i.e., Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120, the Supreme Court held as follows :
'39. The respondent have emphasised the observation that admission has to be made by those who are in control of the colleges. But the question is, on what basis Admissions must be made on a basis which is consistent with the standards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Entry 66 List I. At times, in some of the judgments, the words 'eligibility' and 'qualification' have been used interchangeably and in some cases a distinction has been made between the two words - 'eligibility' connoting the minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the University Act or any Central statute, while 'qualifications' connoting the additional norms laid down by the colleges or by the State. In every case the minimum standards as laid down by the Central statute or under it have to be complied with by the State while making admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down .............................................
52. Mr. Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India has, therefore, rightly submitted that under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 the Indian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe, inter alia, standards of postgraduate medical education. In the exercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33 the India Medical Council has framed regulations which govern postgraduate medical education. These regulations, therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in the exercise of power under Entry 25 of List III, make rules and regulations which are in conflict with or adversely impinge upon the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for post graduate medical education. Since the standards laid down are in the exercise of the power conferred under Entry 66 of the List I the exercise of that power is exclusively within the domain of the Union Government. The power of the State under Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I.'
4. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it clear that the guidelines of the Medical Council of India will have to be followed by the authorities in the matter of admission into medical courses in any medical colleges within the territory of India. Relying upon the aforesaid decision in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), this Court in Thokchom Biswajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors., (2003) 3 GLT 306 interfered with and set aside the admission of candidates belonging to reserved category given in accordance with the State Rules amended immediate before the last date of admission in deviation from the Medical Council of India's guidelines. Therefore, there cannot be any reason for doubt that the guidelines prescribed by the Medical Council of India and approved by the Central Government will have to be followed in the matter of admission.
5. It may be mentioned here that this Court while issuing Rule by the order dated 2.9.2003 observed that the petitioner is entitled to admission for MBBS Course and directed the respondent authority to admit the writ petitioner subject to final decision of the writ petition. This interim order was, however, stood vacated by the order dated 30.9.2003, passed not on merit. In view of the vacation of the interim order, the respondent authority on that day admitted the private respondent whose position in the merit list was below the writ petitioner. This Court by the order dated 12.11.2003 directed personal service of notice on the private respondent. The writ petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply in para 1 has mentioned that in accordance with the order dated 2.11.2003, his father went with the notice to Silchar and made attempt to serve the same on the private respondent. The private respondent refused to accept the said notice. The father of the writ petitioner also informed the Principal of the Medical College of the refusal. Situated thus, this Court has no option but to decide this writ petition finally since the last date of admission is already over, in the absence of the private respondent.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authority is directed to admit the writ petitioner to 1st year MBBS Course in any of the three medical colleges in the State of Assam in accordance with the Medical Council of India's guidelines so far the minimum age is concerned. It is needless to point out that the writ petition shall be accommodated, it necessary, by canceling the admission of the private respondent. However, before such cancellation is ordered, efforts should be made to accommodate the writ petitioner against any vacant seat, if available. Decision in this matter shall be taken and acted upon within a period of 15 days from the day when a copy of this order is furnished.
No costs.