JIMMY ABRAHAM THOMAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (MH-CET 2001) conducted by the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra and the results of this Common Entrance Test. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Original Side of this High Court whereas some of them are filed on the Appellate Side and one writ petition is arising out of a letter sent by a student Miss Priyanka Dinkar Borde from Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which letter has been converted into a suo motu writ petition. These petitions raise questions with respect to the legality and validity of the results of this examination which were declared on 17th May, 2001 and the consequent admissions to various medical courses. These petitions are undoubtedly of urgent nature. All of them are therefore being heard and decided together finally at the admission stage itself.

(2.) FROM amongst these petitions, Writ Petition No. 1658 of 2001 is the first one and is being treated as the lead petition. The State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra were joined initially as the two respondents in this petition. Replies have been filed by these respondents in Writ Petition No. 1658 of 2001 from time to time and they are treated as the replies in the other petitions also. Some interveners appeared in this petition to support it, whereas some appeared to oppose it and some only to make a few suggestions. Some parties filed petitions wherein the prayers were exactly opposite to the Group (A) petitions. These petitions are placed in Group (B ). Writ Petition No. 1658 of 2001 has been filed by the students who have initially sought revaluation of their answer papers and who have subsequently prayed that the revised merit list prepared by the State Government be implemented in place of the earlier merit list and the admissions be granted strictly in accordance therewith. Petitions at Sr. Nos. 6 to 10 in Group (B) above were filed by 5 students who would be affected if Petition No. 1658 of 2001 and other petitions in Group (A) were to be allowed. In these petitions, the Medical Council of India was joined as respondent No. 3 and the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India was joined as respondent No. 4. Prayer (a) of this petition was to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2, i. e. State of Maharashtra and Director of Medical Education and Research, not to cancel the admissions of the students and prayer (b) was to increase the number of seats for the present year. Then there were some other petitions making different and peculiar prayers. They are in Group (C ).

(3.) A number of Counsel have appeared for all these petitioners and also on behalf of the interveners who are either supporting or are opposing these petitions and they have all been heard. Mr. V. C. Kotwal, Senior Advocate, has led this team of lawyers in Group (A) petitions and by and large his arguments are adopted and supported by other Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions and the interveners appearing in support. Mr. Gulam Vahanvati, Advocate General with Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Special Counsel and Mrs. Armin Kalyanram, Assistant Government Pleader, have appeared for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Simran Puri has appeared for Medical Council of India, the respondent No. 3. Mr. V. R. Bhandare and Mr. Madhav Jamdar, led the lawyers, who appeared for interveners, opposing the cause of the Group (A) petitions or who have filed the Group (B) petitions. Ms. Suvedita Shah appeared for the petitioners in petitions at Sr. Nos. 6 to 10 of Group (B) mentioned above and Mr. Suraj M. Shah appeared for Union of India in those matters. Petitions in Group (B) are in fact a sort of cross petitions to the petitions in Group (A ). After these matters were heard for quite sometime, it was felt necessary that Petition No. 1658 of 2001 be treated as the representative petition and notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of C. P. C. be issued to the students who would be affected if the prayer in that petition to implement the revised merit list was granted. Dr. Bhoir and Dr. Doshi represented by Mr. Jamdar and Mr. Bhandare respectively were joined in this Writ Petition No. 1658 of 2001 as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to represent the cause of the students likely to be affected. After that notice was made returnable, some 40 students or their parents intervened through their Advocates and they have also been heard. Mr. R. S. Apte has appeared for a few intervening students, who are presently in the XI standard, only to make suggestions with respect to such examinations to be held in future. The Counsel for the petitioners in Group (C) were also separately heard. The arguments of all the Counsel will be dealt with in detail later on. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties or their submissions hereinafter are with respect to the lead Petition No. 1658 of 2001. However, in the event a separate mention of other matters is required, it is so done at that stage. WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2001