Holding

The Central Government was justified in refusing the one‑time increase, and the High Court correctly refrained from directing it to grant the increase.

Summary

The Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test of 2001 contained errors in the biology paper of one version, leading the State to re‑evaluate answer sheets and issue a revised merit list that displaced several already admitted students. To accommodate the displaced candidates, the State Government sought a one‑time increase in MBBS and BDS seats from the Central Government, which was refused on the ground that no scheme complying with Section 10‑A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the corresponding regulations had been submitted. The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions but declined to direct the Central Government to grant the increase, issuing only other remedial directions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined (i) whether the Central Government was justified in refusing the one‑time increase and (ii) whether the High Court could, under Article 226, compel the Central Government to grant it. The Court held that the statutory requirements were mandatory, the Central Government’s refusal was lawful, and the High Court could not issue a direction contrary to the Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order except for one inappropriate direction.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Government was justified in refusing a one‑time increase in admission capacity in MBBS and BDS courses under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in an extraordinary situation.
Whether the High Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct the Central Government to grant such a one‑time increase.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10-A, s. 33

Subjects

Indian Medical Council ActSection 10-ASection 33Admission capacityOne‑time increaseArticle 226Rule of lawExtraordinary situationMedical collegesRe‑evaluation

Judgment

K.S. BHOIR A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DECEMBER 12, 2001

[V.N. KHARE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Indian Medical Council Act, I956 :

Sections IO-A and 33.

One time increase in the admission capacity in Medical Colleges due to c
extra ordinary situation-Mandatory to submit a scheme in compliance of
Section JOA and Regulation framed under that Act-Non-submission-Effect
of-Held, since no such scheme was submitted to Central Government and
Medical Council had no opportunity to verify the sufficiency ~f .facilities/
requirements, the Central Government was justified in refusing the increase. D

Constitution of India :

Article 226-Powers under-The power conferred is to enforce rule of
law to ensure that authorities act in accordance with law-Directions cannot
E
be issued to an authority to act contrary to statutory provisions.

The Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test was con·
ducted for admission to MBBS, BDS, BAMS etc_ In order to stop unfair
means in the examination, the question papers were prepared in four
versions. On the basis of result of the said examination, admission had F
been given in various Medical Colleges as per merit. Some of the candi-
dates suspected that there was an error in the evaluation of biology paper
in version one of the four versions and filed a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution praying for re-evaluation of the biology paper of

-
____..,_ the said examination. The State Government on re-verification by Exam·
iners found that there were mistakes/errors in the model key answer sheets
of that version. The respondent got re-evaluated all the answer sheets of
that version and prt•pared revised merit list. The consequences of the
G

revised list was that certain number of students from the said version who
should have been admitted in the first instance but for wrong evaluation, H
593
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A were to displace the students already admitted in various Colleges. To meet
such an extra ordinary situation, the State Government wrote to the Ceo·
tral Government for grant of one time increase in admission seats in
MBBS and BDS Courses in various Medical Colleges in the State of
Maharashtra, but the same was refused by the Central Government for
B non-compliance of Section lOA and Regulations framed under Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. High Court while alllowing the writ petitions,
issued several directions to accommodate those students who were dis-
lodged by the revised merit list.

In these appeals it was contended for the appellants that in view of
c the extra ordinary situation having arisen, it was incumbent upon the
Central Government to have granted the one time increase; that proce·
dure of Section 10-A of the Act would apply only to such a situation where
Medical Colleges apply for regular and permanent admission capacity;
that the Central Government acted illegally in refusing to grant permis·
D sion for one time increase in admission capacity; that in view of extra·
ordinary situation as noted by it the High Court ought to have issued
directions to the Central Government to grant one time increase.

It was contended for the Central Government and Medical Council
of India that the Central Government was fully justified in refusing to
E
grant one time increase in the admission capacity.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD : I.I. A perusal ~f the provisions of Section lOA of the Indian
F Medical Council Act read with regulations shows that it is mandatory on
the part of the institution or management, desirous of increasing its admis·
sion capacity in any course o! study, to submit a scheme complying with
the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section lOA and requirement envisaged
under the regulation. If any of the infrastructure facilities as required
either under Section 10(A)(7) or under the regulations are absent, it is
G
open to the Central Government to refuse permission for increase in the
admission capacity in any course of study in Medical College. The object of .•
compliance of these requirements is to ensure the maintenance of higher
standards of education. (600-F·H]

H 1.2. Further, sub-section (1) of Section lOA is a substantive provision
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE 595
in itself and begins with non-obstante clause. It means there is a A
prohibition in the matter of an increase in the admission capacity in a
Medical College unless previous permission of the Central Government is
obtained in accordance with the recommendation of the Medical Council
oflndia. [602-C]

Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka and Ors., [1998] 6 SCC B
131; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
etc., [1999] 7 sec 120, relied on.

2. In the instant case, the State Government sought one time increase
in admission capacity in various Medical Colleges on the premise that the c
Medical Colleges possessed aU the facilities. This was not sufficient. What
was required was that Medical Colleges desirous of one time increase in
admission capacity should have submitted a scheme in accordance with
the Act and the regulations to the Central Government. No such scheme
was submitted to the Central Government and Medical Council has no
D
occasion to verify the sufficiency of the facilities and other requirements.
There being no compliance of requirements under the Act, the Central
Government was justified in refusing permission for one time increase in
the admission capacity in the Medical Colleges. [601-E-F]

3. It is no doubt true that a large number of students who were already E
admitted in Colleges and had incurred a lot of expenditure in taking admis-
sions were to be dislodged by issue of the revised merit list. In such a situa-
tion one can sympathise with the plight of such students. However, compas-
sion and sympathy has no role to play where rule of law is required to be
enforced. High Court has rightly declined to issue any directions to the Cen- F
tral Government to grant one time increase in the admission capacity; oth-
erwise it would be in the teeth of the statutory provisions and amounted to
amending the provisions of Section lOA. It is not permissible for the High
Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory
provisions. The power conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 226
G
is to enforce the rule of law and ensure that the State and other statutory
authorities act in accordance with law.[604-B-F]

A.P. Christain Medical Society v. Govt. of A.P., [1986] 2 SCC 667 and
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Renuka Singh and Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 175, relied
on. H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8485 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2001 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 1658 of 2001.

WITH
B
C.A. Nos. 8486-8488 of 2001.

Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, T.R. Andhyarujina, V.A. Bobde, V.N.
Ganpule, S.Ganesh, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Harish Desai, Raj Shekhar Rao, Ms.
C Shyel Trehan, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, U.U. Lalit, Kumbhkone,
S.V. Deshpande, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, Alok Agarwal, E.C.
Agrawala, Maninder Singh, Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia,
Ms. Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mabra, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi,
Ms. Aishwaraya Rao, A.P. Kolle, M.D. Same!, Rajan Narain, Sajan Narain,
D S.M. Jadhav, (Himinder Lal and R.S. Lambat, (NP) for the appearing partries. ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V. N. KHARE, J, Leave granted.

E This group of appeals gives rise to following two questions for our
decisions :

(I) Whether, in view of an extraordinary situation having arisen, the
Central Government was justified in rejecting the request of the State Govern-
F ment to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and
Dentistry (BDS) courses run in various medical colleges located within the
State of Maharashtra.

(2) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to
G have issued directions to the Central Government to grant one time increase
(·
in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses un-
dertaken by various medical colleges (government run as well as private
management run colleges) in the State of Maharashtra.

H The aforesaid questions have arisen in the context of the facts and
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE [V.N. KHARE,!.] 597
circumstances stated hereinafter. On 29.4.2001, the Maharashtra Health Sci- A
ences Common Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as MH-CET 2001) was
conducted for health sciences courses such as Medicine (MBBS), Dentistry
(BDS), Ayurved (BAMS), Homeopathy (BHMS), Unani Medicine (MUMS),
Physio Therapy (BPTH), Occupational Therapy, Audio and Speech Therapy
(BASLP) and Prosthetics and Orthotics (BP & 0). In the said examination B
about 67 ,563 students appeared throughout the State of Maharashtra. With a
view to see that there is no chance for any unfair means, the question papers
were prepared in four versions and they were marked as versions 11, 22, 33
and 44. The questions in all the versions were the same. But there was a change
in their order. Thus, the students answering the examination were given papers C
of different versions one after another i.e. version 11, 22, 33, and 44 and
thereafter version 11, 22, 33 and 44 and so on which would have made copying
or use of unfair means very difficult. The result of the said examination was
declared on 17.5.2001. On the basis of the result of the said examination a merit
list was prepared for purposes of admission in various colleges. Those who
D
were higher in merit were given admission in colleges of their choice and
adjusted against free seats. In other words, admissions against free seat and·
payment seat in various courses and disciplines were made according to the
merit list. Many selected students on the basis of the said merit list took
admission in various medical colleges and seats meant for Medicine and Dentistry
were particularly filled up. After the result was declared, the writ petitioners E
in writ petition No. 1658/2000 before the High Court found that they have
received lesser marks fn biology paper answered by them than their expecta-
tions. The writ petitioners before the High Court suspected that there was
obviously some error in the evaluation of biology paper in the MH-CET 2001.
Some newspapers printed and published from Mumbai also reported that some F
mistakes have occurred in the process of computerization in the master copy
for answer paper in version 33. It is under such circumstances, the writ peti-
tioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for re-
valuation of biology paper of the said examination. After filing of the writ
petition, the State Government got a re-verification of answer sheets carried out G
\
by six Examiners. The Examiners reported that there were mistakes/errors in
the model key answer sheet of version 33 in the subject of biology. In view
of the aforesaid mistake and error, the respondents decided to re-evaluate all
ihe answer sheets of version 33. After revaluation of the answer sheets of
version 33 the directorate prepared revised merit list showing the correct H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A ranking of the students in the light of re-verification and undertook the entire
admission process afresh in respect of all the candidates, including those who
have already been admitted. Jn view of the aforesaid decision by the State
Government, the writ petitioners before the High Court got the writ petition
amended and sought directions to the respondents to publish and implement the
B revised merit list and grant admission to them in the colleges of their choice
in accordance with their respective position in the revised merit list. The said
amendment was allowed.

The consequences of the preparation of the revised merit list were that
at least 350 students from version 33 who ought to have been admitted in
c Medicine and Dentistry at the first instance but for the wrong eval~ation of
their answer sheets were denied admissions were to displace the students
already admitted in Medicine and Dentistry and other courses. The displaced
students were to be sent downwards and adjusted against seats in various other
Medical Colleges or other disciplines as per their ranking in the revised merit
D list. In fact, an extraordinary situation arose due to mistake at the hands of the
paper setters and examiners. Under such circumstances, to meet such an extra-
ordinary situation, the State Government wrote to the Central Government for
.-
grant of one time increase in admission seats in the MBBS and BDS courses
in various medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra, but the same was
.E refused by the Central Government on account of non-compliance of the
p~visions of Section I OA and the regulations. In that view of the matter, the
High Court, in order to meet the extraordinary situation, by the impugned
judgment while allowing the writ petitions, issued several directions to accom-
modate those students who were already admitted on the basis of first merit list
F in various courses and dislodged by the revised merit list.

Aggrieved, the students who were displaced due to revised merit list
having prepared and others have filed these appeals.

Shri T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appel-
G !ants referred to certain passages of the impugned judgment which we shall (
advert slightly later and, on the strength of the said passages argued that in view
of the extraordinary situation having arisen, it was incumbent upon the Central
government to have granted one time increase in admissions in Medicine
(MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses in various medical colleges in the State
H of Maharashtra. His further argument is that provisions of Section 10-A of the
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE [V.N. KHARE, J.] 599
Act apply only to such a situation where medical colleges apply for regular and A
permanent admissions capacity. According to the learned counsel, there being
no provision to comply with the requirement for grant of one time increase in
admission capacity in various medical colleges, in the interest of the students
who have suffered for no fault of their own in a particular year, the Central
Government acted illegally in refusing to grant permission for one time in- B
crease in admissions capacity in various Medical Colleges. He also argued that
in any case, the High Court, in view of an extraordinary situation having arisen,
as noticed by it, ought to have issued directions to the Central Government
to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and
Dentistry (BDS) courses in various colleges in the State of Maharashtra.
c
Learoed counsel, appearing for the Central Government and Medical
Council of India argued that the view taken by.Jhe Central Government while
refusing to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS)
and Dentistry (BDS) courses was fully justified and was in accordance with
law. It was also argued that the High Court acted within the parameter of law D
while refusing to issue writ of mandamus to the Central government to increase
one time admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses.

Coming to the first question, since long time past, establishing of a
medical college and medical education therein are governed by the Indian E
Medical Council Act, J956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Dentist Act,
J948. Despite there being such provisions, it was experienced that large number
of persons and institutions established medical colleges without providing
therein the minimum necessary and proportionate infrastructure i.e. teaching
and other facilities required for them. As a result it was found that there was
sharp decline in the maintenance of higher standard of medical education. In
F
order to put check on unregulated mushroom growth of medical colleges and
maintain high standard of medical education, it was thought to bring more
stringent provisions in the Act. With the aforesaid view of the matter, in the
year J993, Sections JOA, !OB and JOC were inserted in the Medical Council
Act by amending Act 31/93. Similarly, the provisions of Sections JOA, JOB and G
JOC were also incorporated in the Dentists Act, J948. Sub-section (I) of
Section JOA of the Act provides that no person shall establish a medical college
or no medical college shall open a new or higher course of study or training
or increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with
the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that every
person or medical college desirous of opening a medical college o.r increase its
admission capacity in any course of study or training, including a post graduate
course of study or training shall submit to the Central Government a scheme
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Central govern-
B ment shall refer the said scheme to the Medical Council for its recommenda-
tion. Sub-section (3) of Section lOA further provides that on receipt of such
a scheme by the Council, it may obtain such other particulars, as may be
considered necessary and consider the said scheme having regard to the factor
referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act and send its recom-
mendations to the Central Government. Under sub-section (4) of Section lOA,
c the Central government, on receipt of the recommendation of the Medical
Council is empowered to either approve or disapprove the scheme. It may grant
or refuse permission to open a medical college or increase its admission
capacity. If it is found that the scheme is not in conformity with the provisions
of the Act and regulations framed thereunder, it may refuse to accord permis-
D sion to increase the admission capacity in any course of study or training.
Section 33 of the Act empowers the Medical Council to make regulations for
carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Medical Council, in exercise of power
conferred by Section 33 read with Section lOA of the Act, has framed regu-
lations known as 'Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher
E Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges
Regulation, 1993' (hereafter referred to as the 'regulations'). The said regula-
tion provides for eligibility criteria to be complied with even for making an
application and part of the said regulations deal with the requirements to be
complied with when any medical college applies for increase in admission
F capacity in the college. A perusal of the provisions of Section lOA read with
regulations shows that it is mandatory on the part of the institution or manage-
ment desirous of increasing its admission capacity in any course of study to
submit a scheme complying with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section
lOA and the requirements envisages under the regulations. If any of the infra-
G structure facilities, as required either under sub-section (7) or under the regu-
lations are absent, it is open to the Central Government to refuse permission
for increase in the admission capacity in any course of study in. a medical
college. The object of compliance of requirements mentioned in sub-section (7)
of Section lOA and the regulation is to ensure the maintenance of highest
standard of education. In Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka and
H
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE [V.N. KHARE, J.] 601
Ors., [1998] 6 SCC 131 and Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. etc. v. State of A
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. etc., [1999] 7 SCC 120, it was held that the regu-
lations framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Act are man-
datory. In Medical Council ofIndia v. State of Kartanaka (supra), while dealing
with the admission made in excess of intake capacity fixed by the Council, this
Court observed thus: B

" .. A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done
only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the
hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty
and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student
comes out, he is peifect in the science of treatment of human beings c
and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-
baked medical professionals coming out ofmedical colleges when they
did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the
patients and their ailments during the course of their study .."
D
The compliance of the requirements under the Act and the regulations being
mandatory, in the absence of its compliance, no permission can be granted by
the Central Government for increase in admission capacity in any course in any
medical college. In the present case, the State Government sought one time
increase in admission capacity in various medical colleges on the premise that E
medical colleges possessed all the facilities. This was not sufficient. What was
required, was that medical colleges desirous of one time increase in admission
capacity should have submitted a scheme prepared in accordance with the Act
and the regulation to the Central Government. No such scheme was submitted '
to the Central Government and medical council has no occasion to verify the
sufficiency of the facilities and other requirements. There being no compliance
F
. \
of requirements under the Act, the Central Government was justified in refus-
ing the permission for one time increase in the admission capacity in the
medical colleges. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the order of the
Central Government when it refused to grant permission to the State Govern-
ment to have one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine and Den- G
tistry in various medical colleges located in the State of Maharashtra ..

It was then urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that
the provisions of Section lOA do not prohibit the possibility of one time
enhancement of intake capacity for admission to medical colleges and, thus, H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A permission ought to have been granted by the Central government for such a
one time enhancement or creation of additional number of seats beyond 150
in view of extraordinary situation and the refusal on the part of the Central
Government to grant such permission was erroneous. It was also argued that
sub-sections(!) to (5) of Section JOA being merely procedural, sub-section (7)
B of Section IOA providing for factors to be taken into consideration for an
increase in the admission capacity in a medical college has an overriding effect
on the procedural provisions of sub-sections (!) to (5) and, therefore, the
Central Government committed an error in refusing to permit one time increase
in admission capacity in Medicine and Dentistry courses in the medical col-
leges. We do not find any merit in the submission. Sub-section (I) of Section
c IOA is a substantive provision in itself and begins with non-obstante clause
"notwithstanding anything contained in the Act. ..", it means there is a prohi-
bition in the matter of an increase in the admission capacity in a medical college
unless previous permission of the Central Government is obtained in accord-
ance with the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. The entire
D scheme of Section IOA of the Act has to be read in consonance with other sub-
sections to further the object behind the amending Act. The object being to
achieve highest standard of medical education. The said objective can be
achieved only by ensuring that a medical college has the requisite infrastructure
to impart medical education. As noticed earlier, the object of amending Sec-
E lions IOA, !OB and I OC was for a specific purpose of controlling and restrict-
ing the unchecked and unregulated mushroomed growth of medical colleges
without requisite infrastructure resulting in decline in the maintenance of
,highest standard of education. The highest standard of medical education is
only possible when the requirement of provisions .of Section IOA and the
F regulations are complied with. It has been experienced that unless there is
required infrastructure available in the medical college, the standard of medical
education has declined. Unless an institution can provide complete and full
facilities for training to each student who is admitted in various discipline, the
medical education would remain incomplete and the medical college would be
G t~ming out half-baked doctors which, in turn, would adversely affect the health
of public in general. Thus, for every increase in the admission capacity either
it is one time or permanent, the Council is obliged to ensure a proportionate
increase of infrastructure facilities. The Medical Council can only make
recommendations to the Central Government for grant of permission for one
time intake capacity in seats only when it is satisfied that scheme to be
H
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE [V.N. KHARE, J.] 603
submitted by the medical colleges fulfils all the requirements. Unless such a A
scheme providing for all the requirements provided for in the Act and the
regulations is submitted to the Central Government and the Medical Council
is satisfied that the scheme complies with all the requirement and makes a
recommendation to that effect, only then the Central government can consider
for grant of permission for increase of admission capacity in a medical college. B
Similarly, the Central Government without compliance of the Act and the
regulations cannot grant, without recommendation of the Medical Council, any
permission for one time increase in admission capacity in various courses
conducted by the medical colleges. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the
view that the Central Government was fully justified when it rejected the
request of the State Government for grant of permission for one time increase
c
in the admission capacity in medicine and Dentistry courses in various medical
colleges in the State of Maharashtra.

Coming to the second question, it i~ no doubt true that the High Court
while deciding the writ petitions made the following observations : D

"The seats meant for Medicine and Dentistry were particularly all
.filled in. Just as the petitioners were wrongfully denied admissions to
the courses and c:olleges of their choice are innocent students, those
students, who were already admitted to different courses, were equally
E
innocent. They had in the meanwhile taken their admissions, paid fees
and bought costly equipments and books and had incurred expenditure
of around 10,000 per student apart from fees.

This was an extraordinary situation. The problem cropped up because
of mistakes at the hands of the paper-setters and examiners. The Court F
was told that these were bonafide mistakes and no body disputed that
position. The fact however remains that at least 350 students from
version 33, who would have gone up in Medicine and Dentistry or
other course, had suffered because of the wrong evaluation and thou-
sands of students had been given wrong placements. On the other G
hand, thousands of students had already been admitted in the mean-
time in different colleges. We therefore thought that the proposal of the
State government to get the seats increased as a one time measure for
this year was worth consideration. The government had already ap-
proached the Medical Council of India. Therefore, we thought that this H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A effort deserved to be followed up. This was particularly on the back-
ground of the statement of the Government lawyers that the Govern-
ment and Municipal Medical Colleges did have all the necessary
facilities to take care of these additional seats. "

The aforesaid observations by the High Court were in the coniext of the
B extraordinary and difficult situation that had arisen due to revision of the merit
list. It is in this light the aforesaid observation has to be read and understood.
It is no doubt true that a large number of students who were already admitted
in the colleges and incurred a lot of expenditure in taking admissions were to
be dislodged by issue of the revised merit list. In such a situation one can
C sympathise with the plight of such students who for no fault of their own were
to be dislodged. However, the compassion and sympathy has no role to play
where a rule of law is required to be enforced. The High Court has rightly
declined to issue any direction to the Central Government to grant one time
increase in the admission capacity in the medical colleges, otherwise it would
D not have been proper exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti-
tution. Adjusting equities in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 is one thing, and the High Court assuming the role of the Central Govern-
ment and the Medical Council under Section IOA of the Act is a different thing.
The Court cannot direct to waive the mandatory requirement of law in exercise
E of its extraordinary power under Article 226. It is not permissible for the High
Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory
provisions. The power conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 226
is to enforce the rule of law and ensure that the State and other statutory
authorities act in accordance with law. However, it does not mean that the High
Court is powerless in that regard. It can do so only when it finds that there was
F some illegality in the order of the Central government in refusing to increase
the admission capacity in various colleges. The increase in admission capacity
is permissible only when a scheme, in accordance with the regulations, is
..
submitted by a medical college under Section IOA of the Act to the Central
Government and the Medical Council is satisfied that the scheme complies with
G the requirement of the Act and regulations and thereafter the Medical Council
recommends for such an increase in admission capacity. So long as the require-
r
ments under Section IOA of the Act are not complied with, no permission can
be granted by the Central Government. If any direction is issued by the High
Court to the Central Government to increase the admission capacity in a
H medical college; it would be in the teeth of the statutory provisions and amounted
K.S. BHOIR v. STATE [V.N. KHARE, J.] 605
to amending the provisions of Section JOA. It is not permissible for the High A
Court to direct an authority under the Act to act contrary to the statutory
provisions. The power conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 226
is to enforce the rule of law and ensure that the State and other statutory
authorities act in accordance with law.
B
In A.P. Christian Medical Society v. Government of A.P., [1986] 2 SCC
667, it was held thus:

"any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in
clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the
regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the Univer- C
sity to disobey the stature to which it owes its existence and regulations
made by the university itself We cannot imagine anything more de-
structive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the
loss."
D
In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Renuka Singla and Ors., (1994] I SCC
175, it was held thus:

"The High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal
in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the
authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regula- E
tions, in respect of admissions of students. Technical education, in-
cluding medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the
requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admit-
ted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the
limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical F
Council of India or Dental Cou9cil of India. The High Court cannot
disturb that bafance between the capacity of the institution and number
of admission, on 'compassionate ground'. The High Courts should be
conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the educa-
tion of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed G
seats, after a very tough competitive examination. There does not
appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the
present case, to cjirect admission of respondent I on 'compassionate
ground' and to issue a fiat to create an aclditional seat which amounts
to a direction to violate Section JOA and Section JOB(3) of the Dentists H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Act."

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the High Court acted
within its parameters when it refrained itself from issuing direction to the
Central Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in various
courses in different medical colleges in tl1e State of Maharashtra.
B
We are further of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the High Court was justified in issuing various final orders and directions while
allowing the writ petitions, excepting direction No. F (3), which was not
appropriate and the same is set aside.
c
For the aforesaid reasons, except for the aforesaid modification in the
judgment, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the ap-
peals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.