KANDULA YAMINI SARASWATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these cases are the, unfortunate victims of their date of conception or at least their date of delivery. Since all these petitioners have not completed 17 years of age as on 31 -12-2016, they have been denied the opportunity of securing admission into under-graduate medical courses, despite all of them having secured very high marks in the Intermediate examination and also in EAMCET-3 (competitive examination). Therefore, some of these petitioners have come up with a prayer for the issue of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow them to attend the counselling. The others, finding a huge impediment in the form of the regulations of MCI, have chosen the brave option of challenging Regulation 4( 1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.

(2.) We have heard Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.31337 and 11718 of 2016, Mr. P.Kamlakar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22572 of 2016. Mr. Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.31895 of 2016 Mr. N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.31973 of 2016 and Mr. D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.32025 of 2016 Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar S., learned Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India, Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Medical Sciences, Mr. A. Abhisher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Convenor, A.P. EAMCET-2016 Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Convenor, T.S. EAMCET-2016 and the learned Government Pleads for Medical Health and Family Welfare (Telangana).

(3.) It appears that Regulation 4 of Medici Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, which presents the completion of 17 years of age as on the 31st Dec. of the calendar year, for admission to undergraduate medical courses came under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court in Master Alli Sai Deepak Vs. Government of Andhra Pratkii (1) (W.P.No. 17162 of 2009) 2013 (4) ALT 643 (D.B.) . The petitioner in the said case fell short only by two months and 23 days. As a matter of fact, the Government issued order granting exemption to the petitioner therein. But this Court not only upheld Regulation 4 but also frowned upon the State Government for granting exemption Therefore, the petitioners in these cases, as not entitled to the reliefs that they seek, in view of the said decision of another coordinate bench of this Court. It is true that in two or three cases on hand, the petitioners fall short by the required age, only by a few days. One of the petitioners has secured more than 982 marks out of 1000 and he has fallen short only by three days.